Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Peer Review Congress IV. JAMA 2002; 287(21) (Theme issue): 2759 - 69.

Jefferson T. , Wager E. , Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review . JAMA 2002; 287: 2786 - 9.

Jefferson T. , Alderson P. , Wager E. , Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review. A systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2784-6.

Rennie D. Editorial: Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication . JAMA 2002; 287: 2759 - 60.

Horton R. The hidden research paper. JAMA 2002; 287: 2775-8.

Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 2001; 358: 483-8.

Pitkin RM , Burmeister LF Identifying manuscript reviewers. Randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA 2002; 287: 2795 - 6.

Pitkin RM , Burmeister LF Prodding tardy reviewers. A randomized comparison of telephone, fax, and e-mail . JAMA 2002; 287: 2794 - 5.

Altman DG

Poor-quality medical research. What can journals do?

JAMA 2002; 287: 2765-7.

10.

Altman DG , Goodman SN , Schroter S. How statistical expertise is used in medical research. JAMA 2002; 287: 2817 - 20.

11.

Taube A. Statistiken bör synas. Fundamental för läkarvetenskapens framsteg - men ofta missförstådd och illa utnyttjad i medicinska publikationer [Statistics must be seen and scrtuinized! Fundamental to the progress of medical science - yet shabbily treated in medical journals] (in Swedish). Läkartidningen 2002; 99: 5176 - 9.

12.

Wager E. , Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals. JAMA 2002; 287: 2821 - 4.

Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References