Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:44:37.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology: the Formal Review Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Robyn R. Hepker
Robyn R. Hepker*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
*
C41 GH, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 11 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991

References

1. Lock, S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia, Penn: Institute for Scientific Information; 1986.Google Scholar
2. Horrobin, DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990;263:1438–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Steptoe, P. Historical aspects of the ethics of in vitro fertilization. Ann NY Acad Sri. 1985;442:573–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Robin, ED, Burke, CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bauer, AE. Peer and/or peerless review: some vagaries of the editorial process. Arch Surg. 1985;120:885–888.Google Scholar
6. Wilson, JD. Peer review and publication. J Clin Invest. 1978;61:1697–1701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Soffer, A. Editorial reviewers: what is their function? Arch Intern Med. 1983;143:1867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Olson, CM. Peer review of the biomedical literature. Am J Emerg Med. 1990;8:356–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Bailar, JC, Patterson, K. Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:654–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Glen, JW, Königsson, LK. Refereeing in earth-science journals. Earth and Life Science Editing. 1976;3:11–13.Google Scholar
11. Hargens, LL. Variation in journal peer review systems: possible causes and consequences. JAMA. 1990;263:1348–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Weller, AC. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. JAMA. 1990;263:1344–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Ziman, J. Journal guidelines. Nature. 1975;258:284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Koshland, DE Jr. An editor's quest (II). Science.1985;227:249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Editors. The journal's peer-review process. N Engl J Med.1989;321:837–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Belshaw, C. Peer review and the Current Anthropology experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:200–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. McNutt, RA, Evans, AT, Fletcher, RH, Fletcher, SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371–1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Editors. Editorial peer review. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:638–639.Google Scholar
19. Fish, S. No bias, no merit: the case against blind submission. Publications of the Modern Language Association. 1989:739–747.Google Scholar