Perceived Value of Providing Peer Reviewers With Abstracts and Preprints of Related Published and Unpublished Papers
Article Abstract:
Supplemental material provided to reviewers such as abstracts of related papers and preprints of related unpublished manuscripts might help improve the peer review process. Editors at one journal sent a survey to 471 peer reviewers and provided supplemental material in addition to the manuscript to some but not others. Those who received supplemental materials were much more likely to say that these materials were or would be helpful in the peer review process than those who did not.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Evaluating the BMJ Guidelines for Economic Submissions
Article Abstract:
Guidelines on peer review of health economics articles published in the British Medical Journal do not appear to have made an impact on authors. Editors at BMJ and The Lancet evaluated health economics articles before and after publication of the guidelines in August, 1996. The guidelines had no effect on the quality of the articles, although the acceptance rate dropped from 11.6% to 7%. Editors discovered that the guidelines made it easier for them to edit the manuscript.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: