This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joseph M. Garfunkel, MD; Martin H. Ulshen, MD; Harvey J. Hamrick, MD; Edward E. Lawson, MD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1369-1371.

Abstract
To test the hypothesis that no important deficits would be identified on further review of accepted manuscripts, and that such manuscripts would be recommended for publication on rereview, we sent manuscripts that had been accepted for publication, after review and revision, for rereview by new referees who were unaware of the status of the manuscripts. Each review was evaluated independently by two assistant editors to determine whether substantive criticisms were identified by the new reviewers. The majority of manuscripts were thought by the new reviewers to have defects that warranted further revision, but the problems noted were often dissimilar. However, 80% of the manuscripts were recommended for publication and others were judged suitable for publication, although not at a high priority. The assistant editors frequently differed in their judgments whether a given criticism of a reviewer warranted further revision; nevertheless, there was infrequent disagreement regarding the basic decision for acceptance or rejection.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1369-1371)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to Journal of Pediatrics, CB# 7230, Medical School Wing C, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7230 (Dr Garfunkel).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Reliability of Peer Reviews of Papers on Information Systems
Wood et al.
Journal of Information Science 2004;30:2-11.
ABSTRACT  

Research outcomes in British gastroenterology: an audit of the subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at the British Society of Gastroenterology
SANDERS et al.
Gut 2001;49:154a-155.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT  

Improving Participation and Interrater Agreement in Scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association Abstracts: How Well Have We Succeeded?
Kemper et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;150:380-383.
ABSTRACT  

Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review
Judson
JAMA 1994;272:92-94.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT  

Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Leading Medical Journals: Experts' Assessments
Wilkes et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1992;116:912-919.
ABSTRACT