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