| Document Type
|
:
|
BL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
993900
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
b748270
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Peer review in health sciences /\ edited by Fiona Godlee, Tom Jefferson.
|
| Edition Statement
|
:
|
2nd ed.
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
London :: BMJ Books,, 2003.
|
| Page. NO
|
:
|
1 online resource (xv, 367 pages) :: illustrations
|
| ISBN
|
:
|
0470790687
|
|
|
:
|
: 0585495122
|
|
|
:
|
: 0727916858
|
|
|
:
|
: 1280285362
|
|
|
:
|
: 1444341685
|
|
|
:
|
: 6610285365
|
|
|
:
|
: 9780470790687
|
|
|
:
|
: 9780585495125
|
|
|
:
|
: 9780727916853
|
|
|
:
|
: 9781280285363
|
|
|
:
|
: 9781444341683
|
|
|
:
|
: 9786610285365
|
|
|
:
|
0727916858
|
| Bibliographies/Indexes
|
:
|
Includes bibliographical references and index.
|
| Contents
|
:
|
Peer Review in Health Sciences -- Contents -- Contributors -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1: Editorial peer review: its development and rationale -- The evolution of editorial peer review -- Early history of peer review -- Later history of peer review -- Institutionalisation of peer review -- The modern history of peer review -- Electronic review: Prepublication and postpublication peer review -- The rationale of peer review -- Advantages for the different players -- What's wrong with this picture? -- New burdens on the peer review system -- So many problems, but more and more popular -- Democratisation of the process -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 2: Peer review of grant applications: a systematic review -- Is peer review of grant applications fair? -- Are peer reviewers really peers? -- Is there institutional bias? -- Do reviewers help their friends? -- Age and getting grants -- Gender bias and grant peer review -- Other biases -- Misuse of confidential information -- Reliability of grant peer review -- Does peer review of grant applications serve the best interests of science? -- Is peer review of grant applications cost effective? -- Can peer review of grant applications be improved? -- Blinding -- Signing -- Improving reliability -- Tackling cronyism -- Triage -- Other suggestions -- Should peer review of grant applications be replaced? -- Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 3: The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review -- Background -- The quality of the evidence -- Themes in peer review research -- Conclusions -- References -- Primary sources -- Medline -- Social SciSearch -- Embase -- European Science Editing -- Additional sources -- The International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications, Prague, 1997.
|
|
|
:
|
Ask for feedback from the journal -- References -- 13: Statistical peer review -- Statistics in medical papers -- The effect of statistical refereeing -- Assessing the statistical quality of a paper -- Design: randomised controlled trials -- Design aspects of non-randomised studies -- Methods of analysis -- Presentation -- Interpretation -- Reviewer's report -- Concluding remarks -- References -- 14: Peer review of economic submissions -- The increased availability of economic submissions -- The desirability of good practice in economic evaluation -- Quality of economic submissions -- The role of peer review -- Guidelines and peer review -- Discussion and conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 15: How to peer review a qualitative manuscript -- RATS -- Relevance of the research question -- Appropriateness of the qualitative method -- Transparency of research procedures -- Soundness of interpretative approach -- Detail of the analysis process -- Credibility of interpretations -- Practical tips for being a good peer reviewer of qualitative manuscripts -- Illustrative examples of the peer review of qualitative manuscripts -- Future directions -- References -- 16: Ethical conduct for reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts -- Bias and conflict of interest -- Ethical questions for research proposals -- Ethical considerations in reports of research -- Additional considerations -- Authorship -- Repetitive publication -- Conclusions -- References -- 17: Non-peer review: consumer involvement in research review -- Emergence of "the consumer voice" in health research -- Consumer roles in research activities -- Consumer review of grant applications -- The vexed question of who to involve, and whether participation privileges certain causes or groups -- Consumer participation in editorial peer review.
|
|
|
:
|
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Barcelona 2001 -- Cochrane reviews -- Other references -- 4: The effectiveness of journal peer review -- Usual peer review practices -- The rationale for peer review practices -- Scientific evidence -- Ethical rationale -- Effectiveness of specific peer review practices -- Selecting good reviewers -- Number of reviewers -- Instructing reviewers -- "Blinding" reviewers -- Signing reviews -- Detecting scientific misconduct -- Agreement among reviewers -- Overall effects of peer review on manuscript quality -- Effects of peer review on the profession -- The costs of peer review -- Should peer review be standardised? -- References -- 5: Innovation and peer review -- Are manuscripts containing innovative material rejected? -- If delay by peer review is the norm, how common is it? -- Why might innovations be rejected? -- Is peer review the reason for rejection of innovative manuscripts? -- Is peer review up to the task of reliably detecting and welcoming important innovations? -- What happens when we abandon peer review? -- Will this happen again? -- Are innovative papers rejected more frequently than non-innovative papers? -- What are the consequences? -- If the bias against innovation exists, what can we do about it? -- Grants -- New Mechanisms of Publication -- Journals -- References -- 6: Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions -- Subjectivity and chance -- Bad biases -- Bias relating to the author -- Prestigious authors or institutions -- Geographical bias -- Gender bias -- Minimising biases relating to authors -- Bias relating to the paper -- Publication bias -- What evidence exists for publication bias? -- Time to publication -- Impact of study design -- Authors or journals? -- Impact of publication bias on meta-analysis.
|
|
|
:
|
Publication bias and industry -- Study quality and direction of results -- What conclusions can we draw? -- What can be done to reduce publication bias? -- Non-English language bias -- Conflict of interest -- Conclusions -- References -- 7: Misconduct and journal peer review -- Definitions -- What are our expectations of peer review? -- Confidentiality -- Can the peer review system detect misconduct? -- Cases of misconduct during journal peer review -- Plagiarism of ideas and fabrication -- Plagiarism of ideas and harmful "review" -- Plagiarism of patentable sequence: harmful review -- Lesser crimes by reviewers -- Editorial misconduct -- The role of authors, reviewers, and editors in the prevention of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour -- Responsibilities when misconduct is suspected or an allegation has been raised -- References -- 8: Peer review and the pharmaceutical industry -- Methodological bias -- Reporting bias -- Control of publication -- Sponsorship and advertising -- Conflict of interest -- Remedies and recommendations -- Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies -- Revision of ICMJE uniform requirements -- Moves towards contributorship -- Statements of conflict of interest -- Other guidelines -- Initiatives designed to reduce publication bias -- Conclusions -- Recommendations for peer reviewed journals in relation to the pharmaceutical industry -- References -- 9: Small journals and non-English language journals -- Small journals -- Editorial resources -- Quality of manuscripts -- Bias in peer review at small journals -- The role of small journals -- Non-English language journals -- Selection of manuscripts -- Internationalism vs nationalism -- Limited group of referees -- Secondary publications -- Forms and standard letters -- Conclusion -- References -- 10: How to set up a peer review system -- The overall process.
|
|
|
:
|
What sort of system? -- What do you want of your peer review system? -- Recruiting reviewers -- Classifying your reviewers' interests -- Updating the information -- Using a web-based manuscript tracking system -- Using your reviewer system -- Monitoring the progress of papers -- Letters, lists, and statistics -- Getting the best out of reviewers -- Conclusion -- References -- 11: The evaluation and training of peer reviewers -- Introduction -- The spectrum of peer review -- Why reviewer quality matters -- Selection and initial assessment of reviewers -- Reviewer ratings -- Orientation and expectations -- Formal training for reviewers -- Workshop training -- Other forms of structured feedback to reviewers -- Are reviewers born, or made? -- Recognising the contributions of reviewers -- On the matter of editors -- The future -- References -- 12: How to peer review a manuscript -- How to peer review a manuscript: practical tips -- Do not rush to accept an invitation to peer review a manuscript -- Protect enough time to ensure that the deadline is met -- Remember that your only source of information will be the report you receive from the journal -- Follow a systematic process to review the manuscript -- Communicating your comments to editors and authors: writing your report -- Follow the instructions of the journal -- Summarise the manuscript in a short paragraph before you detail your comments -- Always provide constructive criticism -- Do not use your review as an opportunity for revenge -- Describe any conflict of interest -- Acknowledge any help received during the reviewing process -- Do not go out of your depth -- Label the source of each of your comments explicitly -- Decide whether to sign the review or not -- Send your comments within the deadline given by the journal -- Keep the content of the manuscript confidential.
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
This work discusses the state of peer review, questions its role in the changing world of electronic journal publishing, and debates where it should go from here. New chapters have been added on qualitative peer review, training, consumers, and innovation.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Medical care-- Quality control.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Peer review.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Medical care-- Quality control.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
MEDICAL-- Research.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Peer review.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Peer Review-- trends.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Health Services Research.
|
| Dewey Classification
|
:
|
610.72
|
| LC Classification
|
:
|
R118.6.P44 2003eb
|
| NLM classification
|
:
|
2003 M-498
|
|
|
:
|
W 21P375 2003
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
Godlee, Fiona.
|
|
|
:
|
Jefferson, Tom.
|