Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 391-393 , August 2007

Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts

Received 25 January 2007 ,Accepted 17 May 2007.

References 

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidelines on good publication practice. Available at: www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines. Accessed Jan 15, 2007.
  2. Council of Science Editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Available at: www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/2-3_reviewer.cfm#2.3.2. Accessed Jan 25, 2007.
  3. Young SN. Peer review of manuscripts: theory and practice. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2003;28:327–330
  4. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Int Med. 1993;8:422–428
  5. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. JAMA. 1998;280:231–233
  6. Liesegang TJ, Albert DM, Schachat AP, Minckler DS. The editorial process for medical journals: I (Introduction of a series and discussion of the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers). Am J Ophthy. 2003;136:109–113
  7. Bad peer reviewers. Anonymous Nature. 2001;413:93
  8. Dalton R. Peers under pressure. Nature. 2001;413:102–104
  9. Kempters RD. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:883–888

 Competition of interest: none.

PII: S0741-5214(07)00856-7

doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.05.024

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 391-393 , August 2007

Article Tools