Changes to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process

Gretchen P. Purcell · Shannon L. Donovan · Frank Davidoff

57 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Writing and Publishing Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine 1994Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable 1990An Exploratory Study of Statistical Assessment of Papers Published in the British Medical Journal 1994Effects of Peer Review and Editing on the Readability of Articles Published in Annals of Internal Medicine

Cited by

2006Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies 2011Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation 2017Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons 2002Responsible authorship and peer review 2002Judging the judges: the role of journal editors 2005Ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (CONSORT)2015The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists 2003Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.