Séries temáticas
To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript
Publicar ou perecer: Como rever um manuscrito
J.C. Wincka,, , J.A. Fonsecab, L.F. Azevedob, J.A. Wedzichac
a Pulmonology Department, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
b Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Department & CINTESIS, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
c Academic Unit of Respiratory Medicine, UCL Medical School, Royal Free Campus, University College London, London, UK
Received 12 February 2011, Accepted 28 February 2011
This article is only available in PDF
E. Wager,F. Godlee,T. Jefferson
What is peer review
How to Survive Peer Review, pp. 3-12
L.M. Sylvia,J.L. Herbel
Manuscript Peer Review—A Guide for Health Care Professionals
Pharmacotherapy, 21 (2001), pp. 395-404
D. Rennie
Editorial peer review: its development and rationale
Peer Review in Health Sciences, pp. 1-13
J.C. Burnham
The evolution of editorial peer review
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1323-1329
D. Rennie
Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review
JAMA, 256 (1986), pp. 2391-2392
J.C. Bailar,K.J. Patterson
Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda
N Engl J Med, 312 (1985), pp. 654-657 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198503073121023
D. Rennie
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2759-2760
Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill. JAMA 1990;263:1317-441.
The 2nd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Proceedings. Chicago, Illinois, September 9-11, 1993. JAMA. 1994;272:91-173.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, Czech Republic, September 1997. JAMA. 1998;280:213-302.
IV International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Barcelona, Spain, September 14-16, 2001. JAMA. 2002;287:2759-871.
A.C. Justice,M.K. Cho,M.A. Winker,J.A. Berlin,D. Rennie
Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 240-242
R. Smith,D. Rennie
And now, evidence based editing
BMJ, 311 (1995), pp. 826
B.P. Squires
A global network for medical journal editors
CMAJ, 152 (1995), pp. 62-64
S.N. Goodman,J. Berlin,S.W. Fletcher,R.H. Fletcher
Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine
Ann Intern Med, 121 (1994), pp. 11-21
P.M. Rothwell,C.N. Martyn
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Brain, 123 (2000), pp. 1964-1969
A.M. Link
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 246-247
J. Garrow,M. Butterfield,J. Marshall,A. Williamson
The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 286-287
A.T. Evans,R.A. McNutt,S.W. Fletcher,R.H. Fletcher
The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews
J Gen Intern Med, 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
N. Black,S. van Rooyen,F. Godlee,R. Smith,S. Evans
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 231-233
M.L. Callaham,R.K. Knopp,E.J. Gallagher
Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2781-2783
M.L. Callaham,R.L. Wears,J.F. Waeckerle
Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance
Ann Emerg Med, 32 (1998), pp. 318-322
D.M. Schultz
Are three heads better than two?
Scientometrics, 84 (2010), pp. 277-292
M.K. Cho,A.C. Justice,M.A. Winker,J.A. Berlin,J.F. Waeckerle,M.L. Callaham
Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 243-245
F. Godlee,C.R. Gale,C.N. Martyn
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 237-240
S. Van Rooyen,T. Delamothe,S.J. Evans
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial
BMJ, 341 (2010), pp. c5729
J.R. Hurst,E.C. Howard,J.A. Wedzicha
Reviewer selection: author or editor knows best?
G. Bordage
Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports
Acad Med, 76 (2001), pp. 889-896
D.J. Benos,K.L. Kirk,J.E. Hall
How to review a paper
Adv Physiol Educ, 27 (2003), pp. 47-52
E. Frank
Editors’ Requests of Peer Reviewers: A Study and a Proposal
Preventive Medicine, 25 (1996), pp. 102-104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0035
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals
International Committee of Medical Journal
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 36-47
M. Marusic,A. Marusic
Good editorial practice: editors as educators
Croat Med J., 42 (2001), pp. 113-120
D. Moher,A.R. Jadad
How to peer review a manuscript
Peer Review in Health Sciences, 2nd ed, pp. 183-190
P.E. Bourne,A. Korngreen
Ten simple rules for reviewers
PLoS Comput Biol, 2 (2006), pp. e110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110
S. Van Rooyen,N. Black,F. Godlee
Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts
J Clin Epidemiol, 52 (1999), pp. 625-629
J.M. Provenzale,R.J. Stanley
A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript
AJR Am J Roentgenol, 185 (2005), pp. 848-854 http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0782
L.W. Roberts,J. Coverdale,K. Edenharder,A. Louie
How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach
Acad Psychiatry, 28 (2004), pp. 81-87 http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81
S.H. Downs,N. Black
The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions
J Epidemiol Community Health, 52 (1998), pp. 377-384
T. Jefferson,E. Wager,F. Davidoff
Measuring the quality of editorial peer review
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2786-2790
D.J. Pierson
The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication
Respir Care, 49 (2004), pp. 1246-1252
E. Von Elm,M.C. Costanza,B. Walder,M.R. Tramer
More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review
BMC Med Res Methodol, 3 (2003), pp. 12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-12
R.W. Scherer,K. Dickersin,P. Langenberg
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 158-162
F.G. Hoppin Jr.
How I review an original scientific article
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166 (2002), pp. 1019-1023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200204-324OE
E. Wager,F. Godlee,T. Jefferson
Methodological review checklists
How to Survive Peer Review, 2nd ed, pp. 51-55
Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/ [cited 2010 Dec 19].
S. Schroter,N. Black,S. Evans,F. Godlee,L. Osorio,R. Smith
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
J R Soc Med, 101 (2008), pp. 507-514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062
S. Lock
Does editorial peer review work?
Ann Intern Med, 121 (1994), pp. 60-61

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/html/includes_ws/librerias/html/item.php on line 1203
Copyright © 2011. Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia


  • Impact Factor: 1.560(2016)
  • 5-years Impact Factor: 1,100
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR):0,315
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):0,685

Open Access

Creative Commons License
Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

+ info