American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 136, Issue 1 , Pages 109-113 , July 2003

The editorial process for medical journals: I. Introduction of a series and discussion of the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers

  • Thomas J Liesegang, MD

      Affiliations

    • Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Ophthalmology (T.J.L.), Jacksonville, Florida, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to Thomas J. Liesegang, MD, Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, USA 32224; fax: (904)953-2551
    • ,
  • Daniel M Albert, MD

      Affiliations

    • Editor-in-Chief, Archives of Ophthalmology (D.M.A.), Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    • ,
  • Andrew P Schachat, MD

      Affiliations

    • Editor-in-Chief, Ophthalmology (A.S.), Baltimore, Maryland, USA
    • ,
  • Donald S Minckler, MD

      Affiliations

    • Past Editor-in-Chief, Ophthalmology (D.M.), Los Angeles, California, USA

,Accepted 19 December 2002.

References 

  1. Garrow J, Butterfield M, Marshall J, Williamson A. The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280:286–287
  2. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al.  Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:825–827
  3. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:443–450
  4. Schulman K, Sulmasy DP, Roney D. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals. JAMA. 1994;272:154–156
  5. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994;308:283–284
  6. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research (what can journals do?). JAMA. 2002;287:2765–2767
  7. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors . Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA. 1997;277:927–934
  8. Ang A, Tong L, Bhan A. Analysis of publication trends in two internationally renowned ophthalmology journals. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1497–1498
  9. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement (revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials). JAMA. 2001;285:1987–1991
  10. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses). Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900
  11. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group). JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012
  12. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639
  13. International Steering Committee of Medical Editors . Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. BMJ. 1978;1:1334–1336
  14. Junker CA. Adherence to published standards of reporting (a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German). JAMA. 1998;280:247–249
  15. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA. 2000;283:2701–2711
  16. Horton R. Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. JAMA. 2002;287:2843–2847
  17. Hoen WP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors’ names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). JAMA. 1998;280:217–218
  18. Horton R. The hidden research paper. JAMA. 2002;287:2775–2778
  19. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2799–2801
  20. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication (setting the balance right). JAMA. 1998;280:300–302
  21. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA. 1994;271:469–471
  22. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:267–269
  23. Johnson T. Shattuck lecture—medicine and the media. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:87–92
  24. 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
  25. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422–428
  26. Stossel TP. Reviewer status and review quality. Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:658–659
  27. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts (the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports). Acad Med. 2001;76:889–896

☆ InternetAdvance publication at ajo.com March 4, 2003.

PII: S0002-9394(02)02272-9

doi: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)02272-9

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 136, Issue 1 , Pages 109-113 , July 2003

Article Tools