The European Heart Journal on the move: Can scientific publishing be further improved?

European Heart Journal

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 409-415

  Lüscher, Thomas F ^a   Gersh, Bernard ^a   Hindricks, Gerhard ^a   Landmesser, Ulf ^a   Nallamothu, Brahmajee ^a   Ruschitzka, Frank ^a   Wijns, William ^a  

^a Zurich Heart House ^*  (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CARDIOLOGY; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EUROPE; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84873670044     PISSN: 0195668X     EISSN: 15229645     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs360     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Luscher TF, Gersh B, Brugada J, Landmesser U, Ruschitzka F, Serruys PW; on behalf of the new editorial board. The European Heart Journal goes global: the road ahead of the editorial team 2009-2011. Eur Heart J 2009;30:1-5.
2. Nallamothu B, Luscher TF. Moving from impact to influence: measurement and the changing role of medical journals. Eur Heart J 2012;in press.
3. Julian D. Editorial. Eur Heart J 1980;1:1-3.
4. Luscher TF, Dedecke S, Gersh B, Landmesser U, Serruys P, Rogers S, Ruschitzka F. Happy birthday European Heart Journal: in 30 years from Cinderella to centre stage. Eur Heart J 2011;31:1945-1950.
5. Luscher TF, Ruschitzka F, Landmesser U, Voors AA, van Gilst WH, van Veldhuisen DJ. The European Heart Journal and the European Journal of Heart Failure: partners in scientific publishing. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:1075-1082.
6. Luscher TF, Landmesser U, Ruschitzka F, Grobee DE. Working together in cardiovascular prevention-the common mission of the European Heart Journal and the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012; in press.
7. Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e123.
8. Kronick DA. Peer review in the 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990; 263:1321-1322.
9. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1323-1329.
10. Spier R. The history of the peer review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002;20: 357-358.
11. Fischer EP. Niels Bohr: Physiker und Philosoph des Atomzeitalters. Siedler Verlag: Munchen; 2012.
12. Horton R. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Med J Aust 2000;172:148-149.
13. Luscher TF, Gersh B, Hendricks G, Landmesser U, Ruschitzka F, Wijns W. The best of European Heart Journal: looking back with pride. Eur Heart J 2012;33: 1161-1171.
14. Luscher TF. Good publishing practice. Eur Heart J 2012;33:557-561.
15. Luscher TF, Landmesser U, Ruschitzka F. Standing firm: the European Heart Journal, scientific discoveries and the industry. Eur Heart J 2010;31:1157-1158.
16. ESC Board. Relations between professional medical associations and the healthcare industry, concerning scientific communication and continuing medical education: a Policy Statement from the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2012;33:666-674.
17. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004;12:1250-1251.
18. 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.
19. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 2010;5:e10072.
20. Winnik SH, Raptis DA, Walker JH, Hasun M, Speer T, Clavien P-A, Komajda M, Bax JJ, Tandera M, Fox K, Van De Werf F, Mundow C, Luscher TF, Ruschitzka F, Matter CM. From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting scientific quality. Eur Heart J 2012;in press.
21. Churchill W. Speech before the House of Commons, 11 November 1947, London, UK.
22. Winnik S, Speer T, Raptis DA, JaninaWalker H, Hasun M, Clavien PA, Komajda M, Bax JJ, Tendera M, Fox K, Van F de Werf, Mundow C, Luscher TF, Ruschitzka F, Nallamothu B, Matter CM. The Wealth of Nations and the dissemination of cardiovascular research. Eur Heart J 2012;in press.
23. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, Rennie D. Masking author identity in peer review. What factors influence masking success? JAMA 1998;280:243-245.
24. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280: 240-242.
25. Hearse D. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1133.
26. Fabiato A. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 1994;28:1134-1139.
27. Head SJ, Kaul S, Bogers AJJC, Kappetein AP. Non-inferiority study design: lessons to be learned from cardiovascular trials. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1318-1324.
28. Heinze G, Juni P. An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity analysis. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1704-1708.
29. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, Chung M, Varvarigou V, Jafri H, Rassen JA, Trikalinos TA, Kitsios GD. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1893-1901.
30. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index. Infect Immun 2011;79:3855-3859.
31. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;4:e5738.