Guide for Peer Reviewers of Scientific Articles in the Croatian Medical Journal
Abstract
Reprinted from Croat Med J. 2005; 46(2): 326-32.by permision of the author and Editor-on-chiefDownloads
References
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.
