A peek behind the curtain: Peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke

Annals of Neurology

Volumn 76, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 151-158

  Sposato, Luciano A ^a,b   Ovbiagele, Bruce ^c   Johnston, S Claiborne ^d   Fisher, Marc ^e,f   Saposnik, Gustavo ^b,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b BioSci Research Canada Ltd   (Canada)

^c MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^e AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION   (United States)

^f HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; BIBLIOMETRICS; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 84907597276     PISSN: 03645134     EISSN: 15318249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ana.24218     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Stewart PM,. Academic medicine: a faltering engine. BMJ 2002; 324: 437-438.
2. Welch SJ,. Selecting the right journal for your submission. J Thorac Dis 2012; 4: 336-388.
3. Eisenberg N, Thompson MS, Augir S, Stanley EH,. "Getting in" revisited: an analysis of manuscript characteristics, reviewers' ratings, and acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin. Psychol Bull 2002; 128: 997-1004.
4. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 2010; 5: e10072.
5. Cullen DJ, Macaulay A,. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal. Acad Med 1992; 67: 856-859.
6. Howard L, Wilkinson G,. Peer review and editorial decision-making. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 173: 110-113.
7. 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: 1964-1969.
8. Wade D, Tennant A,. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical Rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 117-124.
9. Kuehn BM., Striving for a more perfect peer review: editors confront strengths, flaws of biomedical literature. JAMA 2013; 310: 1781-1783.
10. Kumar R,. The science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review. BMJ 2013; 347: f7465.
11. Holliday EB, Jagsi R, Wilson LD, et al. Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration, and funding among U.S. academic radiation oncology faculty. Acad Med 2014; 89: 767-773.
12. Fortin JM, Currie DJ,. Big science vs. little science: how scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS One 2013; 8: e65263.
13. Saposnik G, Johnston SC, Raptis S, et al. Stroke journal: what is being published to advance the field? Stroke 2013; 44: 2644-2649.
14. Saposnik G, Ovbiagele B, Raptis S, et al. Effect of English proficiency and research funding on acceptance of submitted manuscripts to Stroke journal. Stroke 2014; 45: 1862-1868.
15. United Nations. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm Accessed June 1, 2014.
16. Bruton A, Conway JH, Holgate ST,. Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured? Physiotherapy 2000; 86: 94-99.
17. Indrayan A,. Clinical agreement in quantitative measurements. Limits of disagreement and the intraclass correlation. In:, Doi SAR, Williams GM, eds. Methods of clinical epidemiology. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013: 17-27.
18. Renni e D,. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. JAMA 1986; 256: 2391-2392.
19. Weber W,. European clinical research scandal investigators question self-regulation. Lancet 2000; 356: 53.
20. Baethge C, Franklin J, Mertens S,. Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal-a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. PLoS One 2013; 8: e61401.
21. Varela G, Rendina EA,. Agreement between thoracic reviewers for the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 45: 777-778.
22. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL., Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998; 280: 229-231.
23. Huang S,. When peers are not peers and don't know it: The Dunning-Kruger effect and self-fulfilling prophecy in peer-review. Bioessays 2013; 35: 414-416.
24. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, et al. Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 595-601.
25. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL., Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 443-450.
26. Pulverer B,. Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature 2010; 468: 29-31.