 |
|
Editorial Peer Review in US Medical Journals
Ann C. Weller, MA
JAMA. 1990;263(10):1344-1347.
Abstract
This study determined if the process of editorial peer review is the same for all medical journals. Two categories of indexed US medical journals were examined: group 1 consisted mainly of well-known, clinically oriented journals, while group 2 was composed primarily of interdisciplinary or specialized journals. Data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. All 16 group 1 editors or managing editors were interviewed. Questionnaires were mailed to 124 group 2 editors (69.4% were returned). Results showed that, although some of the practices of editorial peer review are the same, the two groups of journals had distinct editorial peer review practices. Group 1 made less use of editorial peer review than group 2 by relying on the editorial staff at several important decision points.
(JAMA. 1990;263:1344-1347)
Author Affiliations
From the Library of the Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.
Reprint requests to the Library of Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, PO Box 7509, Chicago, IL 60680 (Ms Weller).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2003;27:47-52.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses in the Medical Literature: Are the Methods Being Used Correctly?
Udvarhelyi et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1992;116:238-244.
ABSTRACT
Editorial
Brumback
J Child Neurol 1991;6:193-195.
Clinical Research in Otolaryngology Journals
Rosenfeld
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;117:164-170.
ABSTRACT
|
