Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports Presented as a poster at the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2013, Chicago, IL.

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 401-406.e6

  Schriger, David L ^a   Kadera, Samantha P ^a   Von Elm, Erik ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA ANALYSIS; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84959577117     PISSN: 01960644     EISSN: 10976760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. R. Smith Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J R Soc Med 99 2006 178 182
2. E. Garfield Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas Science 122 1955 108 111
3. M.L. Callaham, and D.L. Schriger Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers Ann Emerg Med 40 2002 323 328
4. Callaham M, Schriger D, Cooper RJ. An instructional guide for peer reviewers of biomedical manuscripts. Available at: http://www.annemergmed.com/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/ymem/index.html. Published 2004. Accessed July 26, 2015.
5. S.M. Green, and M.L. Callaham Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability Ann Emerg Med 57 2011 149 152
6. M. Callaham, and C. McCulloch Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers Ann Emerg Med 57 2011 141 148
7. D.L. Schriger, R.J. Cooper, R.L. Wears, and et al. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality Ann Emerg Med 40 2002 334 337
8. F.C. Day, D.L. Schriger, C. Todd, and et al. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers Ann Emerg Med 40 2002 329 333
9. Egger M, Wood L, von Elm E, et al. Are reviewers influenced by citations of their own work? evidence from the International Journal of Epidemiology. 2005 Abstracts: International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Available at: http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/abstracts.html#citations. Accessed August 22, 2015.
10. H. Gosden Why not give us the full story? functions of referees' comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers J English Acad Purp 2 2003 87 101
11. P. Mungra, and P. Webber Peer review process in medical research publications: language and content comments Eng Spec Purp 29 2010 42 53
12. D.B. Resnik, C. Gutierrez-Ford, and S. Peddada Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study Sci Eng Ethics 14 2008 305 310