References
Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee: Appendix 1: checklist of review criteria. Acad Med 2001; 76: 958–959
Bland C, Caelleigh A, Steinecke A: Reviewer’s etiquette. Acad Med 2001; 76: 954–955
Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889–896
Additional Resources
Black N, Van Rooyen GF, et al: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 1041–1067
Bligh J: What happens to manuscripts submitted to the journal? Med Educ 1998; 32: 567–570
Bordage G, Caelleigh AS: A tool for reviewers: “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” Acad Med 2001; 904–908
Committee on Publication Ethics: The COPE Report 2000. www.publicationethics.org.uk/cope2000/pages2000/contents/phtml
Creswell JW: Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1994, pp 1–16
Feinstein AR: Clinical Epidemiology: The Architecture of Clinical Research. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1985
Hall GM: How to Write a Paper. London, BMJ Publishing Group, 1994
Knoll E: The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 1990; 263: 1330–1332
Morgan P: How the editor works! In: An Insider’s Guide for Medical Authors and Editors. Philadelphia, ISI Press, 1986, pp 67–81
Shea JA: Reviewer’s recommendation. Acad Med 2001; 76: 952–953
The Third International Congress on Peer Review. JAMA 1998; 280: 203–306
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roberts, L.W. On the Centrality of Peer Review. Acad Psychiatry 26, 221–222 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.26.4.221
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.26.4.221