Literature DB >> 7726010

Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment.

D P Friedman1.   

Abstract

Concern by the government, funding institutions, and the public for quality assurance in all aspects of medical endeavors mandates critical examination of various professional activities. Although peer review is generally regarded as the best system for selecting and improving scientific papers for publication, the efficacy of this process has never been proved. Moreover, the administrative functions of the editorial staff are often poorly understood. The purpose of this article is to make peer review a the AJR less esoteric and more understandable by quantifying some of its activities. This information is then assessed as it relates to the quality of this important step in scientific publication.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7726010     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.164.4.7726010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  2 in total

Review 1.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-28

2.  Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.

Authors:  Cecilia Superchi; José Antonio González; Ivan Solà; Erik Cobo; Darko Hren; Isabelle Boutron
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 4.615

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.