 |
|
Peer Review in Prague
Drummond Rennie, MD
JAMA. 1998;280:214-215.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In this issue of THE JOURNAL, we publish 33 articles, based on presentations in Prague, Czech Republic, on subjects surrounding the publication of science relevant to clinicians. This constitutes the third such theme issue of JAMA, since our announcement in 1986 that we would hold a conference to present research into editorial peer review.1
Publication has always been a central part of the research process, but there had, before this, been remarkably few serious investigations into its workings,1-3 though no shortage of opinion written in the absence of facts. The lack of information was particularly surprising given the strong prejudices being advanced for and against peer review.1 Now, 12 years later, some questions about peer review are being answered. More importantly, a growing number of our colleagues accept that their processes are worthy of serious study, and that, as we face the future, it makes sense . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Dr Rennie is Deputy Editor (West), JAMA.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
Bell et al.
BMJ 2006;332:699-703.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
JADA INDUSTRY ADVISORY BOARD
Yeager
Journal of the American Dental Association 2002;133:1319-1320.
FULL TEXT
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
Rennie
JAMA 2002;287:2759-2760.
FULL TEXT
Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT
|
