and Global Communications
Thursday through Saturday, September 18-20, 1997
Following the success of 2 previous Congresses on Peer Review held in 1989 and 1993, we aim to further the science of editorial peer review through this third congress.
DETAILED PROGRAM
Thursday, September 18 (* indicates speaker)
Reporting, Peer Review, and
Authorship: The Future
Drummond Rennie* (United States)
Trends in Authorship
Moderator: Drumond Rennie
Read a news summary on this session
Professors Responsible for Increase in Authorship
Joost P Drenth* (The Netherlands)
Authorship Policies in US Medical Schools: Report of
a Survey
Anne Hudson Jones* (United States)
Research on Authorship
Wendela P Hoen, Henk Walvoort and John Overbeke* (The Netherlands)
Honorary Authors, Ghost Authors, and Medical Writers in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals
Annette Flanagin, Stephanie Phillips, Phil Fontanarosa,* Lisa Carey,
Brian P Pace, George D Lundberg, AND Drummond Rennie (United States)
Conflicts of Interest and Economic
Considerations
Moderator: Roy Pitkin (United States)
Financial Interest and Disclosure in Scientific
Publications
Sheldon Krimsky* (United States)
A Survey of Journal Conflict of Interest Policies
Richard M Glass* and Mindy Schneiderman (United States)
Evaluating the BMJ Guidelines on Economic
Submissions: Prospective Audit of Economic Submissions to the BMJ
and The Lancet
Tom Jefferson, *Richard Smith, Mike Drummond, Rajendra Kale, and Yunni Yi
(United Kingdom)
The Quality of Peer Review
Moderator: Richard Horton (United Kingdom)
Changes During Peer Review: Characterizing the Evolution of
a Clinical Paper
Gretchen P Purcell* and Frank Davidoff (United States)
A Survey of Journal Editors Regarding the Review Process
for Original Clinical Research
Drothy L Lebeau,* William C Steinmann, and Robert K Michael (United States)
Consistency of Reviewer Ratings and Impact on Editor
Manuscript Decisions
Michael L Callaham* and Joseph Waeckerle (United States)
What Makes a Good Reviewer and What Makes a Good Review?
Susan Van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Richard Smith,
and Nick Black* (United Kingdom)
Peer Review and Masking
Moderator: Povl Riis (Denmark)
Read a news summary on this session
The Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding
Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports: A Randomized
Controlled Trial
Fiona Godlee, Catharine R. Gale, and Christopher N.Martyn* (United Kingdom)
The Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review :
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Susan Van Rooyen, *Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Richard Smith,
and Nick Black (United Kingdom)
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: Does It Improve
Peer Review Quality?
Amy Justice,* Mildred Cho, Margaret Winker, Jesse Berlin, Drummond Rennie, Mike Berkwits, Michael Callaham,
Phil Fontanarosa, Erica Frank, David Goldmann,
Steven Goodman, Roy Pitkin, Rohit Varma, Joseph
Waeckerle (United States)
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence
Masking Success?
Mildred Cho,* Amy Justice, Margaret Winker, Jesse Berlin, Joseph
Waeckerle, Drummond Rennie, William Appelgate, Ken Rothman, Mike Berkwits, Michael Callaham,
Phil Fontanarosa, Erica Frank, David Goldmann, Steven Goodman,
Roy Pitkin, Rohit Varma (United States)
(* indicates speaker)
Friday, September 19(* indicates speaker)
Peer Review, Misconduct, and Progress in Science
John C Bailar* (United States)
Publication Bias: Transcultural Issues
Moderator: Tim Empkie (Czech Republic)
Publication Bias in Two Spanish Medical Journals
Carlos Campillo* (Spain)
Papers Submitted From Outside and Inside the United States:
An Analysis of Reviewer Bias
Ann M Link* (United States)
Assessing the Quality of Reports on Placebo-Controlled Trials
Published in English or German Language
Christoph Junker* and Matthias Egger (Switzerland and United Kingdom)
Publication Bias: Negative Results,
Unpublished Data, and Sex
Moderator: David Moher (Canada)
Read a news summary on this session
Publication Bias and the Passive Smoke Research:Interviews With Investigators
Anastasia L Misakian* and Lisa A Bero (United States)
Characteristics of Unpublished Research and Reasons for Failure to Publish
Ellen Weber,* Michael L Callaham, Robert L Wears, Christopher Barton, and Gary P Young (United States)
Data on File Cited in Pharmaceutical Advertisements: What are They?
Andrew Herxheimer(United Kingdom)
Is There a Sex Bias in Choosing Editors? Epidemiology
Journals as an Example
Kay Dickerson,* Lisa Fredman, Katherine M. Flegal, Jane D Scott,
and Barbara Crawley (United States)
Publication Bias: Authors, Reviewers,
Unconventional Work, and Amnesty
Moderator: John C Bailar (United States)
Read a news summary on this session
Reviewing the Reviews: The Case of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Simon Wessely,* John Joyce, and Sophia Rabe-Hesketh (United
Kingdom)
Peer Reviewer Bias Against Unconventional Medicine?
Edzard Ernst* and Karl-Ludwig Resch (United Kingdom and
Germany)
Does Peer Review Favor the Conceptual Framework of Orthodox
Medicine? A Randomized Controlled Study
Karl-Ludwig Resch,* Edzard Ernst, and John Garrow (Germany and
United Kingdom)
Medical Editors Trial Amnesty (META)
Ian G Roberts* (United Kingdom)
Electronic Aids for Editors and Reviewers
Moderator: George Lundberg (United States)
Quality Criteria That Support Computer-Assisted Retrieval
and Review of Scientific Data
Robert S Dewoskin* (United States)
A Software Program to Aid in Peer Review
Alvar Loria* and Gladys Faba, for the ARTEMISA Selection Committee (Mexico)
The News Media and Peer-Reviewed
Publications
Moderator: George Lundberg (United States)
Read a news summary on this session
Peer-Reviewed Articles and Public Health: The "Mad
Cow" Affair in Italian Newspapers
Nicola Petrosillos,* Maria Stella Aloisi, Enrico Girardi,
Lucilla Rava, and Giuseppe Ippolito (Italy)
Randomized Controlled Trial to Determine the Effect of
Press Releases From a General Medical Journal on the Quantity and
Quality of Press Coverage
Diana Bozalis, Vikki Entwistle, and Richard Smith* (United
States and United Kingdom)
(* indicates speaker)
Saturday, September 20(* indicates speaker)
Peer Review and the Quality of "I" and "D" in IMRAD
Iain Chalmers* (United Kingdom)
The Editors and their Journals
Moderator: Magne Nylenna (Norway)
Read a news summary on this session
Are Medical Journal Editors Singing More Loudly and
Preaching More?
Richard Smith* (United Kingdom)
A Comparison of the Opinions of Recognized Experts and
Ordinary Readers as to What Topics a General Medical Journal
Should Address
George D Lundberg,* Marshall Paul, and Helga Fritz (United
States)
Amateur Editors
John Garrow,* Michael Butterfield, Jacinta Marshall, and
Alex Williamson (United Kingdom)
What is the Lifespan of a Manuscript After Submission?
David McNamee* (United Kingdom)
Improving Quality: The Role of Abstracts and Related Literature
Moderator: Floyd Bloom (United States)
Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Descriptors and Use of
Structured Abstracts
Roberta W Scherer* and Kay Dickersin (United States)
Can the Accuracy of Abstracts Be Improved by Specific
Instructions?
Roy M Pitkin* and Mary Ann Branagan (United States)
The Perceived Value of Providing Peer Reviewers With Abstracts
and Preprints of Related Published and Unpublished Papers
Christopher L Hatch* and Steven N Goodman (United States)
Improving Quality of Systematic Reviews,
Meta-analysis, and Controlled Trials
Moderator: Fiona Godlee (United Kingdom)
External Refereeing of Protocols for Systematic Reviews
Lisa A Bero,* Roberto Grilli, Jeremy Grimshaw, Emma Harvey,
and Andrew D Oxman (United States, Italy, United Kingdom, and
Norway)
Characteristics of Meta-analyses Submitted to a Medical Journal
Donna F Stroup, Stephen B Thacker, Carin M Olson,* and Richard M Glass(United States)
The Cochrane Collaboration: Its Impact on the Quality of
Systematic Reviews
Alejandro R Jadad,* Deborah J Cook, Alison Jones, Terry
Klassen, Michael Moher, Peter Tugwell, and David Moher (Canada)
The Quality of Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled
Trials Published in 1997 by Five Leading General Medical Journals
Michael Clark* and Iain Chalmers (United Kingdom)
When Things Go Wrong:
Author Disputes, Legal Intrusions, and Fraud
Moderator: Richard Smith (United Kingdom)
Read a news summary on this session
Closing Some Legal Loopholes in the Peer Review Process
Philip C Swain* (United States)
Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and
Citations to the Publications
John M Budd* and Mary Ellen Sievert (United States)
Authorship: The Coins of the Realm, the Source of
Complaints
Linda Wilcox (United States)
The Journal Ombudsman: A Precursor to a Scientific Press
Council?
Richard Horton (United Kingdom)
(* indicates speaker)
Poster Session Presentations, September 18(* indicates speaker)
Peer Review in Bangladesh: An Analysis From a Journal
Perspective
Hasan Shareef Ahmed* (Bangladesh)
The Nature of Statistical Input in Medical Research
Douglas G Altman,* Steven N Goodman, Frank Davidoff,
and Richard Smith(United Kingdom and United States)
Redundant Publication: Survey of Journal Editros and
Authors
Deborah Barnes,* Veronica Yank, Lisa Bero, Drummond Rennie
(United States)
An International Survey of Quality Control Procedures in
Independent Drug Bulletins
Dominique Broclain, Pierre Chirac,* and Ellen L'Hoen(France)
The Role of Statistical Review in a New Journal
Julia Brown,* Janet Dunn, William Jones, David Machin, and
Patricia Shevlin (United Kingdom and Singapore)
Relationship of Editorial Ratings of Reviewers to Reviewer
Performance on a Standardized Test Instrument
Michael Callaham,* Jospeph Waeckerle, and William Baxt (United
States)
Commercial and Scientific Conflict in Biomedical
Publishing: The Perspective of an International Pharmaceutical
Company
Paul M Woodcock and Hamish Cameron* (United Kingdom)
The Effect of Informing Referees That Their Comments Would
Be Exchanged on the Quality of Their Reviews
Savitri Das Sinha,* Peush Sahini, and Samiran Nundy (India)
A Typology of Scientific Originality: Initial Validity
Testing
Lynn Dirk* (United States)
Time Trends and Recent Acceptance Rates for Publication of International Manuscripts in
Leading US Medical Journals
Timothy C Fagan* (United States)
Is Peer Review Technologically Obsolete?
Susan Feigenbaum* and David M Levy (United States)
Use of Reviewers By Clinical Journals
John Garrow, Michael Butterfield, Jactina Marshall, and Alex
Williamson* (United Kingdom)
Reviewers' Attitudes Toward an Enhancement of the Peer-Review process
Robert J Goldberg* and James E Dalen (United States)
A Cost-Effectiveness Model of Peer Review
Stanley J. Heginbotham (United States)
Peer Review or Practical Reason? An Argumentative Approach
Richard Horton* (United Kingdom)
Civil War and Scientific Activity in the Former Yugoslav
Republics
Rajiko Igic* (United States)
Statistical Inaccuracies in Peer-Reviewed Articles
Shelley Johnson* and Adel Mikhail (United States)
Evaluation of Three-Step Reviewing Process of Three
Chinese Peer-Reviewed Journals
Liu Kelan* (China)
Peer Review and the Credibility of Scientific Biomedical
Journals of Developing Countries
Guillermo J Padron* and Jose V Costales (Cuba)
A Structured Review of the Literature on Peer Review
Jean-Pierre Piere and John Overbeke* (The Netherlands)
Peer Review: Recommendation Is Based on Few Aspects
Karl-Ludwig Resch,* Annegret Franke, and Edzard Ernst (Germany and
United Kingdom)
The Educational Role of Peer Review in a Medical Journal
From a Developing Country
Humberto Reyes,* Ronald Kauffmann, and Max Andersen (Chile)
Attribution of Credit by Contribution
Timothy C Smith* and Peter V Scott (United Kingdom)
Earning Authorship:A Survey of Researcher's Views
R Stacy,* P H Pearson, E F S Kaner, B G Vernon, J M Rankin, R S Bhopal
, E McColl, L H Thomas, and H Rodgers(United Kingdom)
Reference and Quotation Accuracy in the Major and
Minor Infectious Disease Journals
Kelly J Warren,* Neal Bhatia, Winnie Teh, Matthew G Fleming,
and Michael Lange(United States)
Selective Publication of Advanced Research from Eastern
Europe in International Journals
Vasiliy Vlassov* (Russia)
(* indicates speaker)
Poster Session Presentations, September 19(* indicates speaker)
Effect of Attendance at a Training Session on Peer Reviewer
Quality and Performance
Michael L Callaham,* Robert Wears, and Joseph Waeckerle
(United States)
Positive Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the
Selection of Research Abstracts for a Scientific Meeting
Michael Callaham, Robert L Wears, Ellen Weber,* Christopher
Barton, and Gary Young (United States)
Press Releases From Biomedical Publications and Their Impact
on Mass Media
Vladimir De Semir,* Cristina Ribas, and Gemma Revuelta (Spain)
Are Scientific Publishers Amending Permissions Policies for
the Digital Era?
Eamon Fennessy* (United States)
Publication Habits of Women and Men at Stanford University
School of Medicine
Erica Frank* (United States)
Peer Review of Commissioned State-of-the-Art Papers
Liselotte Hojgaard* (Denmark)
The Scientific Paper: Fraudlent or Formative?
Richard Horton* (United Kingdom)
The Use of Systematic Reviews for Peer Reviewing
Tom Jefferson, Vittorio Demicheli, and John Hutton* (United
Kingdom and Italy)
Nursing Home Research: The Positive Effect of Instructions
for Authors on the Quality of Reported Research Ethics
Jason HT Karlawish,* Gavin W Hougham, Carol B Stocking, and
Greg A Sachs (United States)
Information From reading a Journal Is Not Well Retained and Depends
on the Motivation of the Reader
Catherine Kellert,* Christopher Bulstrode, Ailsa Hart,
and Philip Fulford(United Kingdom)
Use of Bibliometric Measures to Assist the Peer Review
Process in Neurosciences
Grant Lewison* and Wendy Ewert (United Kingdom)
Peer Review of Domestic and International Manuscripts in a
Journal From the Scientific Periphery
Ana Marusic,* Tomislav Mestrovic, Mladen Petrovecki, and Matko
Marusic (Croatia)
The Role of Grey Literature in Meta-Analysis
Laura M McAuley,* David Moher, and Peter Tugwell (Canada)
Realism and Idealism in Instructions to Referees
Shiela Mary McNab* (The Netherlands)
Gender Representation in the Editorial and Peer Review
Processes
Anatasia L Misakian,* Renee Williard and Lisa A Bero (United States)
Ethical Problems in a Prospective Study of Submissions to a
Medical Journal
Carin M Olson,* Richard M Glass, Donna F Stroup, and Stephen B
Thacker (United States)
Evaluation of the Peer Review Process in Medicina Clinica
(Spanish Journal of Internal Medicine)
JM Ribera,* F Cardellach, M Belmonte, F Lozano, E Feliu, C Rey-Joly, N
Nonell, M Foz, C Rozman, J Ruiz, and J A Dotu (Spain)
Understanding the Process of Critical Reading
Patricia M Shevlin, *Julia M Brown, and A Vivenne Webb (United
Kingdom)
Computer-Based Structured Reporting of Randomized Trials
Ida Sim,* DK Owens, and GD Rennels (United States)
Serial Journals of the Chinese Medical Association: The
Present Status and the Improvement
You Suning* (China)
Selection of Abstracts for an Otolaryngology Meeting:
Correlation of Blinding With Subsequent Publication
N. Wendell Todd* (United States)
Research Designs and Statistical Methods Used in Chinese
Medical Journals
Wang Qian* and Zhang Boheng (China)
(* indicates speaker)
Conference on Peer Review and Global
Communications
Sunday, September 21, 1997(* indicates speaker)
Welcome
Suzanne Fletcher, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (United States)
Debate - Resolved: By the Year 2020, Paper
Biomedical Journals Will Be Extinct
Moderator: Suzanne Fletcher
The Proponent and View From the Internet Trenches
Ronald
LaPorte, Global Health Network and the University of
Pittsburgh (United States)
The Skeptic and View From the Ivory Tower
Jerome Kassirer, New
England Journal of Medicine (United States)
Real-Life Experiences With Electronic Editing,
Peer Review, and Publishing
Moderator: George D. Lundberg, JAMA and AMA Scientific
Information and Multimedia (United States)
Peer Review in Theoretical Physics: An Electronic Study
Andrew Cohen, Physics Communications and Boston University (United States)
The Science Experience
Floyd Bloom, Science and the Scripps Research Institute (United States)
More Real-Life Experiences: Focus on Peer
Review
Moderator: Iain Chalmers, UK Cochrane Centre (United Kingdom)
Electronic Peer Review of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Lisa Bero, University of California, San Francisco, Cochrane Center (United States)
The Medical Journal of Australia Internet Peer-Review Trial
Martin Van Der Weyden, and Craig Bingham, Medical Journal of Australia (Australia)
Worldwide Needs, Expectations, and
Possibilities
Moderator: Suzanne Fletcher
|
Western European Approach Magne Nylenna, Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association (Norway) |
The Indian Perspective Samiran Nundy, National Medical Journal of India (India) |
|
View From Russia Saveli Bachtchinski, Cardiosphera Publishing House (Russia) |
African Reactions Daniel J Ncayiyana, South African Medical Journal (South Africa) |
Roundtable Discusssion
All speakers of the day host group discussion with extensive
audience participation.
Peer Review Congress home
page
JAMA
home page
(* indicates speaker)