 |
|
Congress on Biomedical Peer Review
History, Ethics, and Plans for the Future
Drummond Rennie, MD;
Annette Flanagin, RN, MA
JAMA. 1998;280:213.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The articles published in this issue of JAMA were presented during the Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, held September 1997, in Prague, Czech Republic.1-3 The congress was a joint effort of JAMA, BMJ, and Project HOPE and was attended by scientific editors, publishers, and communicators from 46 countries.
The congress was successor to 2 previous congresses, held in 1989 and 1993, to present research into the editorial process of scientific publication, particularly peer review. These first 2 congresses received 50 and 110 abstracts, respectively, and the best articles from the congresses were published in JAMA.4-5 The third congress received 160 abstracts, from which 91 abstracts were selected for presentation after undergoing double-blind review. Abstracts submitted for the third congress generally demonstrated improved quality in research and included several randomized controlled trials on masked peer review.
The . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Dr Rennie is Deputy Editor (West) and Ms Flanagin is Associate Senior Editor, JAMA.
RELATED ARTICLE
The International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications Advisory Board
JAMA. 1998;280(3):211.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reviewers, Authors, and Editors: Balance of Power
Bressler
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:524-526.
FULL TEXT
|
