Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Editorial peer review: methodology and data collection.

A C Weller1

  • 1Library of the Health Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago 60680.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
|July 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Peer review is essential for both print and electronic publications.

MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine·2002
Same author

Information-seeking behavior of health sciences faculty: the impact of new information technologies.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·1998
Same author

A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·1996
Same author

Information-seeking behavior: a survey of health sciences faculty use of indexes and databases.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·1993
Same author

Editorial peer review in US medical journals.

JAMA·1990
Same author

Editorial policy and the assessment of quality among medical journals.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·1987
Same journal

Further comments on the mathematical analysis of evaluating scientific journals.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
Same journal

The medical library of St. Luke's Hospital, Chicago.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
Same journal

Tanned human skin.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
Same journal

A short classification of medical literature.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
Same journal

Yellow fever in New York City.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
Same journal

The war and the medical library.

Bulletin of the Medical Library Association·2010
See all related articles

This study compared editorial peer review practices in U.S. medical journals. Interviews and questionnaires revealed differences in responses, especially on sensitive topics, with editors sometimes providing ideal rather than actual practices.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Journal Publishing
  • Scientific Communication
  • Research Integrity

Background:

  • Editorial peer review is crucial for medical journal quality.
  • Practices may vary between high-impact and general medical journals.
  • Understanding these practices informs journal standards and evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate and compare editorial peer review practices in two categories of U.S. medical journals.
  • To analyze discrepancies between data collected via interviews and questionnaires.
  • To assess the reliability of self-reported data in editorial surveys.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of two journal groups (high-impact vs. general) indexed in Index Medicus.
  • Data collection through pretested interviews and mailed questionnaires.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of response rates, editor participation, and answer variations between methods.

    • Main Results:

    • High editor participation rates for interviews (100% Group 1, 93.8% Group 2).
    • A 69.4% questionnaire response rate suggests strong interest or effective follow-up.
    • Approximately 11-15% answer differences between interviews and questionnaires were observed.
    • Editors sometimes provided socially desirable answers on questionnaires for sensitive topics.

    Conclusions:

    • Initial interviews effectively guide questionnaire design for editorial surveys.
    • Questionnaire data may not fully capture actual editorial practices, particularly for sensitive issues.
    • Methodological choices in data collection impact the understanding of journal peer review processes.