Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):227-8.
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.227.
Affiliations
- PMID: 9676663
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.227
Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper
G P Purcell et al. JAMA. 1998.
Abstract
Context: Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial revision processes.
Objective: To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes made to address these problems.
Design and setting: Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997).
Main outcome measure: Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and revision.
Results: Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions).
Conclusion: The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties.
Similar articles
- Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet.
Jefferson T, Smith R, Yee Y, Drummond M, Pratt M, Gale R. Jefferson T, et al. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):275-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.275. JAMA. 1998. PMID: 9676680 - Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals.
van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ. van Lent M, et al. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 12;9(8):e104846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104846. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25118182 Free PMC article. - Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
Vercellini P, Buggio L, Viganò P, Somigliana E. Vercellini P, et al. Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:15-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014. Epub 2016 Apr 26. Eur J Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27129625 Review. - [Shared responsibility in expert review of original articles].
Shashok K. Shashok K. Rev Neurol. 1997 Dec;25(148):1946-50. Rev Neurol. 1997. PMID: 9528039 Review. Spanish.
Cited by
- An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.
Miller E, James Weightman M, Basu A, Amos A, Brakoulias V. Miller E, et al. Australas Psychiatry. 2024 Jun;32(3):247-251. doi: 10.1177/10398562241231460. Epub 2024 Feb 8. Australas Psychiatry. 2024. PMID: 38327220 Free PMC article. Review. - The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists.
Smyth RM, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR. Smyth RM, et al. Trials. 2015 Jan 26;16:16. doi: 10.1186/s13063-014-0536-6. Trials. 2015. PMID: 25619208 Free PMC article. - Alternatives to peer review: novel approaches for research evaluation.
Birukou A, Wakeling JR, Bartolini C, Casati F, Marchese M, Mirylenka K, Osman N, Ragone A, Sierra C, Wassef A. Birukou A, et al. Front Comput Neurosci. 2011 Dec 14;5:56. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00056. eCollection 2011. Front Comput Neurosci. 2011. PMID: 22174702 Free PMC article. - A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication.
Hing CB, Higgs D, Hooper L, Donell ST, Song F. Hing CB, et al. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011 Apr 28;6:19. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-6-19. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011. PMID: 21527007 Free PMC article. - CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. Moher D, et al. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869. BMJ. 2010. PMID: 20332511 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous