This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jeffrey L. Kaufman, MD
Baystate Medical Center Springfield, Mass

JAMA. 1992;267(21):2891.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The study by Dickersin et al from Johns Hopkins¹ on publication of research results and the Editorial by Dr Rennie and Ms Flanagin² neglected to analyze the response of journal editors to the reputation of the institution from which the manuscript originated. My experience is that editors are influenced favorably to publish manuscripts from "big name" institutions. I am concerned that "negative" results from a less prominent institution are less likely to be published, even if the paper is well written and the results are derived from an excellent protocol with impeccable numbers. What was the pattern of editorial response? How many manuscripts were returned for revision more than once? Were the reviews brief or "nitpicking"? How often did the Hopkins authors come away with the impression that the reviewer never read the manuscript beyond the abstract and that the review was unfair? Based on . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Deputy Editor (West), and Bruce B. Dan, MD, Senior Editor.

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