Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals

Croatian Medical Journal

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 386-389

  Gasparyan, Armen Yuri ^a,b   Kitas, George D ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b RUSSELLS HALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICINE; EVIDENCE BASED NURSING; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; REFERENCE DATABASE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84866435595     PISSN: 03539504     EISSN: 13328166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J. 2011;52:423-8.
2. Gasparyan AY, Banach M. A medium of science communication in our times. Arch Med Sci. 2009;5:1-2.
3. Garmel GM. Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. Perm J. 2010;14:32-40.
4. Horton R. Science will never be the same again. Lancet. 2010;376:143-4.
5. The pitfalls and rewards of peer review. Lancet. 2008;371:447.
6. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323-9.
7. Saidi F. The dual role of peer-review systems in developing countries. Arch Iran Med. 2007;10:519-21.
8. Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.
9. Gasparyan AY. Familiarizing with science editors' associations. Croat Med J. 2011;52:735-9.
10. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12 Suppl 4:S13.
11. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000016.
12. Wong VS, Callaham ML. Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:247-52.
13. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews. Learn Publ. 2009;22:117-25.
14. Ioannidis JP, Tatsioni A, Karassa FB. Who is afraid of reviewers' comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010;40:285-7.
15. Bornmann L, Marx W, Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32:1861-7.
16. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e22475.
17. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D. Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008;59:1841-52.
18. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-3.
19. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e40.
20. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e332.
21. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295:314-7.
22. Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, Bergman AB, Joffe A, Christakis DA. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. J Pediatr. 2007;151:202-5.
23. Moore JL, Neilson EG, Siegel V; Associate Editors at Journal of American Society of Nephrology. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22:1598-602.
24. Habibzadeh F. Judge the article, not the author. Croat Med J. 2010;51:357-8.
25. Landy DC, Coverdale JH, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern. Acad Med. 2009;84:495-7.
26. Satyanarayana K, Sharma A. Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns. Indian J Med Res. 2010;132:119-22.
27. Khosrowjerdi M, Zeraatkar N, Vara N. Publication delay in Iranian scholarly journals. Serials Review. 2011;37:262-6.
28. Arunachalam S. Information for research in developing countries - information technology, a friend or foe? International Information and Library Review. 2003;35:133-47.
29. Matarese V. Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2512.
30. Ardakan MA, Mirzaie SA, Sheikhshoaei F. The peer-review process for articles in Iran's scientific journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2011;42:243-61.
31. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673.
32. Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs. 2009;25:101-8.
33. Bornmann L, Mungra P. Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing. 2011;37:41-3.
34. Matarese V. Multiple rejections: role of the writing process. Lancet. 2011;378:1296.
35. UK Parliament comments on peer review. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:1153.