The fate of manuscripts rejected from Anaesthesia

Anaesthesia

Volumn 72, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 427-430

  Docherty, A B ^a   Klein, A A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b PAPWORTH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

anesthesiology; journal; peer review; research

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; AUTHOR; EDITORIAL; FUNDING; HUMAN; OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA; PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; ANESTHESIOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85011949825     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13829     Document Type: Editorial

References (21)

1. Larsen O, von Ins M. Scientometrics 2010; 84: 575.
2. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006; 99: 178–82.
3. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2007; 95: 442–5.
4. Giles J. Science in the web age: start your engines. Nature 2005; 438: 554–5.
5. Grant WD, Cone DC. If at first you don't succeed: the fate of manuscripts rejected by academic emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine 2015; 22: 1213–7.
6. Wijnhoven BP, Dejong CH. Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2010; 97: 450–4.
7. Nemery B. What happens to the manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication in Occupational and Environmental Medicine? Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2001; 58: 604–7.
8. Zoccali C, Amodeo D, Argiles A, et al. The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts. Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation 2015; 30: 1947–50.
9. Holliday EB, Yang G, Jagsi R, et al. Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal. International Journal of Radiation Oncolology Biology Physics 2015; 91: 3–10.
10. Cronin B. The resilience of rejected manuscripts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2012; 63: 1903–4.
11. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014; 383: 257–66.
12. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 2010; 14: 1–193.
13. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007: MR000011.
14. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 23–7.
15. Beall J. Medical publishing triage – chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery 2013; 2: 47–9.
16. Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE Code of Conduct. http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct (accessed 06/01/2017)
17. Klein AA. What Anaesthesia is doing to combat scientific misconduct and investigate data fabrication and falsification. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 3–4.
18. Carlisle JB, Loadsman JA. Evidence for non-random sampling in randomised, controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 17–27.
19. Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 848–58.
20. Miller DR. Probability screening in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals – an effective tool or a statistical quagmire? Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 765–8.
21. Lariviere V, Kiermer V, MacCallum C, et al. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. bioRxiv 2016. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062109 (accessed 06/01/2017).