[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
March 9, 1990

Editorial Peer Review in US Medical Journals

Author Affiliations

From the Library of the Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.

From the Library of the Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago.

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1344-1347. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100048007
Abstract

This study determined if the process of editorial peer review is the same for all medical journals. Two categories of indexed US medical journals were examined: group 1 consisted mainly of well-known, clinically oriented journals, while group 2 was composed primarily of interdisciplinary or specialized journals. Data were collected through a series of interviews and questionnaires. All 16 group 1 editors or managing editors were interviewed. Questionnaires were mailed to 124 group 2 editors (69.4% were returned). Results showed that, although some of the practices of editorial peer review are the same, the two groups of journals had distinct editorial peer review practices. Group 1 made less use of editorial peer review than group 2 by relying on the editorial staff at several important decision points.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1344-1347)

×