Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-01-2015 | Editorial

Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process – A Look Behind the Curtain

Author: Seth S. Leopold, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 1/2015

Excerpt

Peer review is fundamental to the editorial process, but the vital work of our reviewers is only one component of many in that process. As we begin the new year, this seems a suitable time to give both our readers and our authors a look behind the curtain: What do we know about peer review’s efficacy, can it be improved, and what happens at Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ^® after the reviews have been completed? …

Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O’Callaghan A, Kostov B, García L, Cirugeda L, Altman DG, González JA, Sànchez JA, Miras F, Urrutia A, Fonollosa V, Rey-Joly C, Vilardell M. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: Masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d6783.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Cunningham BP, Harmsen S, Kweon C, Patterson J, Waldrop R, McLaren A, McLemore R. Have levels of evidence improved the quality of Orthopaedic Research? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3679–3686.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11–21.PubMedCrossRef

Horton R. Genetically modified food: Consternation, confusion, and crack-Up. Med J Aust. 2000;172:148–148.PubMed

Houry G, Green S, Callaham M. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kronick DA. Peer review in 18^th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321–1322.PubMedCrossRef

Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2^nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1970:166–173.

Leopold SS. Let’s Talk About Level IV: The Bones of a Good Retrospective Case Series. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. 471;353–354.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Nature Publishing Group. History of the journal Nature. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/history/timeline_1960s.html. Accessed September 22, 2014.

10.

Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:119–121.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178–182.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process – A Look Behind the Curtain
Author: Seth S. Leopold, MD
Publication date: 01-01-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Editorial: Peer Review and the Editorial Process – A Look Behind the Curtain

Excerpt

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Have a Phenotype With Higher Bone Mass, Higher Fat Mass, and Lower Lean Body Mass

What Is the Role of Mental Health in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

The John Insall Award: Morbid Obesity Independently Impacts Complications, Mortality, and Resource Use After TKA

Letter to the Editor: Does the Use of Ultrasound Affect Contamination of Musculoskeletal Injections Sites?

The Alpha-defensin Test for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Outperforms the Leukocyte Esterase Test Strip

Abnormal Quantitative Sensory Testing is Associated With Persistent Pain One Year After TKA