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

George A. Gellert, MD, MPH, MPA
Project HOPE Millwood, Va

JAMA. 1995;273(2):114-115.

	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 recent publication in JAMA of papers from the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication¹ demonstrates quite clearly that the strategy of using periodic conferences to generate research on peer review has been successful. It is interesting to note that since the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication in 1989 not only has there been an increase in the quantity of research on peer review generated (from 50 to 110 abstracts submitted),^1,2 but the complexity of research appearing in THE JOURNAL is greater. More manuscripts from the second congress used quantitative methods and less were of a descriptive nature.

These observations relate to the future study of biomedical peer review. Is there any loss associated with the gain of a shift to quantification in peer review research? Research on diseases where behavioral factors elevate risk has sought to complement . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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