Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Notfall +  Rettungsmedizin 1/2010

01.02.2010 | Editorial

Vorgehen entsprechend „Best Practice“ im Peer Review Verfahren und bei der Manuskriptbearbeitung, um eine hohe Beitragsqualität zu gewährleisten

verfasst von: T. Groves

Erschienen in: Notfall + Rettungsmedizin | Ausgabe 1/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Peer review is used at many different stages of scientific discovery. It is essential to the approval and funding of research studies, staff, and departments; regulation and approval of new drugs and medical technologies; and selection of research for presentation at conferences. Journal peer review is probably the oldest example, however, and when Europe’s first scientific journals were launched in 1665—the Journal des Sçavans (later renamed Journal des Savants) and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—both used peer review. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) now defines journal peer review as“unbiased, independent, critical assessment…by experts who are not part of the editorial staff” and calls it an intrinsic part of all scholarly work. When peer review and editing are done well, readers can trust and use the published information in good faith. But to deserve such trust journals must ensure that peer review is fair and rigorous, and must help authors to fully and honestly report their work. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000016PubMed Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000016PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318:23–27 van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 318:23–27
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, van der Weyden MB (1998) Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study. Lancet 352:441–445CrossRefPubMed Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, van der Weyden MB (1998) Medical Journal of Australia internet peer-review study. Lancet 352:441–445CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal. JAMA 280:231–233CrossRefPubMed Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S (1998) What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal. JAMA 280:231–233CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Vorgehen entsprechend „Best Practice“ im Peer Review Verfahren und bei der Manuskriptbearbeitung, um eine hohe Beitragsqualität zu gewährleisten
verfasst von
T. Groves
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2010
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin / Ausgabe 1/2010
Print ISSN: 1434-6222
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-0578
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-009-1230-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2010

Notfall +  Rettungsmedizin 1/2010 Zur Ausgabe

CME Weiterbildung · Zertifizierte Fortbildung

Hirnstammblutungen