Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay

Australasian Medical Journal

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 26-29

  Lotriet, Cornelius J ^a  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Article submission process; Peer review; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW;

EID: 84862667130     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18361935     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Williams MJ. The peer review process from an editor's point of view. Small Gtpases. 2010; 1(2):77.
2. Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. What is peer review. In: Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMJ Books; 2002. p. 3-12.
3. Lipworth W. Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review. Australas Psychiatry [Review]. 2009; 17(4):331-4.
4. Vrana R. Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems. Journal Publishing in digital era: STM scientific journals in Croatia, 2011. Varazdin, Croatia:21 Sep 2011.
5. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 42(1):1-13.
6. Hartly J. Editorial practices in psychology journals. The Psychologist. 1988; 1:428-430.
7. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ [Comment Editorial]. 1999; 318(7175):4-5.
8. Editorial freedom. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. BMJ. 1988; 297(6657):1182.
9. Reviewing refereeing. Nat Cell Biol [Editorial]. 2011; 13(2):109.
10. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain. 2000; 123 (Pt 9):1964-9.
11. Bradley JV. Editorial overkill. Bull Psychonomic Soc. 1982; 19:271-274.
12. Newton DP. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors. Account Res. 2010; 17(3):130-45.
13. Bacchetti P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ [Review]. 2002; 324(7348):1271-3.
14. Shankar PR. An urgent need to strengthen medical journals in South Asia. Australasian Medical Journal. 2011; 4(11):628-630.
15. Drubin DG. Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review). Mol Biol Cell [Editorial]. 2011; 22(5):525-7.
16. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Ed. 2003; 27(1/4):47-52.
17. Jiwa M, Lotriet J. The AMJ Serving Australasia. Australasian Medical Journal. 2011; 4(11):636-637.
18. Winck JC, Fonseca JA, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA. To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol. 2011; 17(2):96-103.
19. Jiwa M, Oberoi D, Cottrell E, Sharma A, Clark G, Hanson G. Writing for publication - raising standards at the AMJ. Australasian Medical Journal. 2011; 4(4):225-228.
20. Fischer C. Editor as Good Steward of Manuscript Submissions: 'Culture,' Tone, and Procedures. JScholP. 2004; 36(1):34-42.