 |
|
Evaluating the BMJ Guidelines for Economic Submissions
Prospective Audit of Economic Submissions to BMJ and The Lancet
Tom Jefferson, MD;
Richard Smith, MD;
Yunni Yee, Msc;
Mike Drummond, DPhil;
Mark Pratt;
Rajendra Gale, MD
JAMA. 1998;280:275-277.
Context.— Editorial management of articles on health economics may benefit from guidelines for peer review and revision.
Objective.— To assess whether publication (in August 1996) of the BMJ guidelines on peer review of economics submissions made any difference to editorial and peer review processes, quality of submitted manuscripts, and quality of published manuscripts.
Design and Setting.— Before-after study conducted in the editorial offices of BMJ and The Lancet of the effect of the BMJ guidelines on review and revision of economics submissions, defined as those making explicit comments about resource allocation and/or costs of interventions.
Main Outcome Measures.— Editorial fate and changes in the quality of submissions.
Results.— A total of 2982 manuscripts were submitted to the 2 journals during the before periods, 105 (3.5%) of which were economics submissions. Of these, 27 (24.3%) were full economics evaluations, and 78 (75.7%) were other economics submissions. Overall acceptance rate was 11.6% (12/105). During the after period 2077 manuscripts were submitted to the 2 journals, 87 (4.2%) of which were economics submissions. Eighteen (20.7%) were full economics evaluations, and 69 (79.3%) were other economics submissions. Overall acceptance rate was 6.9% (6/87). Although a number of manuscripts could not be traced to determine whether they were economics submissions, there appeared to be little difference between the 2 journals in numbers or editorial fate of the manuscripts. There was no change in the quality of submitted manuscripts, but BMJ editors found the guidelines and checklists useful and sent fewer economics submissions for external peer review in the after phase.
Conclusions.— Publication of the guidelines helped the BMJ editors improve the efficiency of the editorial process but had no impact on the quality of economics evaluations submitted or published.
From the Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom (Dr Jefferson and Mr Pratt), and BMJ (Drs Smith and Gale), London, England; and the Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England (Ms Yee and Dr Drummond).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Developing and Evaluating Criteria to Help Reviewers of Biomedical Informatics Manuscripts
Ammenwerth et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:512-514.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of economic evaluations in health care
Jefferson and Demicheli
BMJ 2002;324:313-314.
FULL TEXT
A Comprehensive League Table of Cost-Utility Ratios and a Sub-table of "Panel-worthy" Studies
Chapman et al.
Med Decis Making 2000;20:451-458.
ABSTRACT
The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976-1997
Neumann et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2000;132:964-972.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology
Friedberg et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1453-1457.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Structuring the discussion of scientific papers
Jefferson et al.
BMJ 1999;319:580-580.
FULL TEXT
Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies
Barber and Thompson
BMJ 1998;317:1195-1200.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT
|
