 |
|
Changes to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process
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).
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
Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal: [Le devis de recherche, l'originalite et la coherence generale des manuscrits soumis au Journal influencent leur acceptation ou leur rejet]
Turcotte et al.
Canadian J. Anesthesia 2004;51:549-556.
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
|
