This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (23)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Characterizing the Evolution of a Clinical Paper

Gretchen P. Purcell, MD, PhD; Shannon L. Donovan, MA; Frank Davidoff, MD

JAMA. 1998;280:227-228.

Context.— Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial revision processes.

Objective.— To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes made to address these problems.

Design and Setting.— Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997).

Main Outcome Measure.— Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and revision.

Results.— Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions).

Conclusion.— The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties.

From Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (Dr Purcell), and Editorial Offices, Annals of Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pa (Ms Donovan and Dr Davidoff).

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  

Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project
Davidoff and Batalden
Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:319-325.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals
Laine et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:1038-1040.
FULL TEXT  

Judging the judges: the role of journal editors
Ray
QJM 2002;95:769-774.
FULL TEXT  

The Hidden Research Paper
Horton
JAMA 2002;287:2775-2778.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Editor's World
Davidoff
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:1144-1146.
FULL TEXT  

The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:663-694.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT