Guide for Peer Reviewers of Scientific Articles in the Croatian Medical Journal
Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21.
Ernst E, Resch KL. Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med. 1994;124 :178-82.
Albert T. Peer review: thinking the unthinkable BMJ. 1999;319:861.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8:75-96.
De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Science Editor. 2004;27:190-1.
Paice E. How to write a peer review. Hosp Med. 2001;62:172-5.
Callaham M, Schriger D, Cooper RJ. An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts. Available from: http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/extractor/graphics/em-acep/index.html. Accessed: February 7, 2005.
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-3.
Hoppin FG Jr. How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1019-23. Matko Marušić et al.: Guide for Peer Reviewers of Scientific Articles in the Croatian Medical Journal 58
Kljakovic-Gaspic M, Hren D, Marusic A, Marusic M. Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? Arch Med Res. 2003;34:439-43.
Godlee F, Dickersin K. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999. p. 57-78.
Smith R. How the BMJ triages submitted manuscripts. Available from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/talks/triage/index.htm. Accessed: February 7, 2005.
Lang TA, Secic M. How to report statistics in medicine. Philadelphia (PA): American College of Physicians; 1997.
Sollaci LB, Pereira MG. The introduction, methods
results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:364-7.
Huth EJ. Writing and publishing in medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincot Williams & Wilkins; 1999.
Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 4th ed. Phoenix (AZ): Oryx Press; 1994.
Consort. Strength in science, sound ethics. Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org. Accessed: February 7, 2005.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group. Croat Med J. 2003;44:639-50.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-12.
Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999. p. 145-56.
Steinecke A, Shea JA. Review form. Acad Med. 2001; 76:916-8.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999;318:23-7.
Badenoch D, Heneghan C. Evidence-based medicine toolkit. London: BMJ Books; 2002.
- There are currently no refbacks.