Editorial Peer Review in US Medical Journals

Abstract

This study determined if the process of editorial peer review is the same for all medical journals. Two categories of indexed US medical journals were examined: group 1 consisted mainly of well-known, clinically oriented journals, while group 2 was composed primarily of interdisciplinary or specialized journals. Data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. All 16 group 1 editors or managing editors were interviewed. Questionnaires were mailed to 124 group 2 editors (69.4% were returned). Results showed that, although some of the practices of editorial peer review are the same, the two groups of journals had distinct editorial peer review practices. Group 1 made less use of editorial peer review than group 2 by relying on the editorial staff at several important decision points.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

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