Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T04:07:00.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology: the Formal Review Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

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

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
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;263:14381441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Steptoe, P. Historical aspects of the ethics of in vitro fertilization. Ann NY Acad Sri. 1985;442:573576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Robin, ED, Burke, CM. Peer review in medical journals. Chest. 1987;91:252255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bauer, AE. Peer and/or peerless review: some vagaries of the editorial process. Arch Surg. 1985;120:885888.Google Scholar
6. Wilson, JD. Peer review and publication. J Clin Invest. 1978;61:16971701.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;8:356358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Bailar, JC, Patterson, K. Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:654657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Glen, JW, Königsson, LK. Refereeing in earth-science journals. Earth and Life Science Editing. 1976;3:1113.Google Scholar
11. Hargens, LL. Variation in journal peer review systems: possible causes and consequences. JAMA. 1990;263:13481352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Weller, AC. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. JAMA. 1990;263:13441347.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;321:837839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Belshaw, C. Peer review and the Current Anthropology experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:200201.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;263:13711376.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. 1989:739747.Google Scholar