The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review

Burnham, John C.

doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003

Cited by 243 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…JPART readers also are well aware of the double-blind peer review process where scholars with relevant knowledge provide critical feedback to authors and journal editors prior to manuscript publication (Burnham 1990;Kronick 1990;Sandewall 2006). This approach has a long, evolving history dating to the 16th century (see Johns 2001;Ziman 1969), with continual improvements made as a result of new technologies; for example, the invention of the typewriter and carbon paper made it easier to replicate submitted articles (Spier 2002).…”

Section: Traditional Scholarly Roles and Means Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Open Public Administration Scholarship

Schweik¹,

Mergel²,

Sandfort³

et al. 2010

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay focuses on the potential of information communication technologies to move the Public Administration (PA) scholarly community into a new information paradigm. We begin with a review of conventional approaches PA scholars use to communicate with each other, students, and practitioners. After illustrating advances in Web applications, we call for an ''Open PA Scholarship'' in which research, teaching, and engagement are conducted in a more participatory, timely, and effective manner enabled by new technologies. We conclude with a proposal of Online PA Commons, an interactive Web platform that may facilitate the development of such scholarship.

show abstract

Section: Traditional Scholarly Roles and Means Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Open Public Administration Scholarship

Schweik¹,

Mergel²,

Sandfort³

et al. 2010

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A scientific journal first appeared in 1665; citation of manuscripts began in 1752 [6,34]. In 1955, the impact factor (IF) was proposed by Eugene Garfield as a simple method to calculate the relative frequencies of citations between journals ( Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Self-citation in Publishing

Mavrogenis

Ruggieri

Papagelopoulos³

2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 When medical journals first appeared a century earlier, the editor had overwhelming importance as writer, spokesperson, and solicitor of content. As the twentieth century progressed, however, specialization of knowledge pressured editors into incorporating the advice of experts through peer review.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to review journal manuscripts

Rosenfeld

2010

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review, which arose in the early 1900s in response to the editor's need for expert advice to help select quality articles from numerous submissions. Most reviewers learn by trial and error, often giving up along the way because the process is far from intuitive. This primer will help minimize errors and maximize enjoyment in reviewing. Topics covered include responding to a review invitation, crafting comments to editors and authors, offering a recommended disposition, dealing with revised manuscripts, and understanding roles and responsibilities. The target audience is primarily novice reviewers, but seasoned reviewers should also find useful pearls to assist their efforts.© 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. All rights reserved.A common complaint of nearly all journal editors is the difficulty in finding competent reviewers to assess an increasing volume of submitted manuscripts. Identifying content experts is relatively easy, but finding those with expertise in both content and reviewing is quite another matter.One question considered at some point by everyone contemplating a manuscript review is, "why bother?" Reviewing takes time, and time for intellectual pursuits is a luxury that few can afford. The short answer is, "because it is the right thing to do," but in more pragmatic terms, reviewing manuscripts is enjoyable, challenging, can generate continuing medical education (CME) credits, affords a privileged insight into the frontiers of knowledge, and, importantly, develops critical thinking skills that improve research, teaching, and clinical care.Reviewing manuscripts is central to editorial peer review, which arose in the early 1900s in response to the editor's need for expert advice to help select quality articles from numerous submissions. 1 When medical journals first appeared a century earlier, the editor had overwhelming importance as writer, spokesperson, and solicitor of content. As the twentieth century progressed, however, specialization of knowledge pressured editors into incorporating the advice of experts through peer review. Specialization applied not only to subject matter, but also to methods and techniques, with expertise at times limited to only a few specific research sites.Society journals, like this one, initially resisted peer review because members of the organization assumed that the journal should print whatever was sent in or presented at meetings. Moreover, editors could not fill their pages if all manuscripts, many of mediocre quality, had to pass the filter of peer review. This is no longer a concern for Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, which receives nearly 2000 submissions annually, of which many are high quality but few are accepted for publication. Peer review today is an important extension of the scientific process, especially for society journals, because it champions expertise within the organization. Current goals of peer review are listed in Table 1. MethodsThe su...

show abstract

The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review

Cited by 243 publications

References 31 publications

Toward Open Public Administration Scholarship

Toward Open Public Administration Scholarship

Editorial: Self-citation in Publishing

How to review journal manuscripts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About