Editorial Peer Review Research Articles

How to review journal manuscripts

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.

Peer review: Necessary evil or last resort? An overview of the current research status on the quality of editorial peer review

The article gives a short overview of a cutout of the current state of research of the methodical quality of the peer review-procedure, the investigation by independent specialized colleagues, in this report related to the peer review-procedure, which finds within the range of scientific publishing application. The criteria reliability and validity are examined as central characteristics of quality in this peer review-procedure. It is shown that (missing) validity is not the problem, since the agreement of the reviewer is often given in the procedure and is increased by exact guidances for the execution of the investigation process. Smaller reliability is already rather a deficit, which however one tries to work against by standardisation in the procedures. A dilemma when using peer review becomes visible, which generally arises also in other procedures for the quality measurement of scientific output: standardisation, which is a constant accompanying product. Despite existing methodical weaknesses peer review will be used surely also further as tool for the scientific quality measurement and selection of articles which can be published in magazines. With the arising of other, less officialized publication platforms (like e.g. those of the Open-Access movement) however the authentication printing increases to the peer review-procedure, why a resuming and deepening view of the reliability and validity of this procedure are essential surely. (DIPF/ssch) Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen kurzen Uberblick uber einen Ausschnitt des aktuellen Forschungsstandes zur methodologischen Qualitat des Peer Review-Verfahrens, der Begutachtung durch unabhangige FachkollegInnen, in diesem Bericht bezogen auf das Peer Review-Verfahren, das im Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens Anwendung findet. Die Kriterien Reliabilitat und Validitat werden als zentrale Merkmale von Qualitat in diesem Peer Review-Verfahren genauer untersucht. Es zeigt sich, dass (fehlende) Validitat nicht das Problem ist, da die Ubereinstimmung der Begutachter im Verfahren oftmals gegeben ist und durch genaue Anleitungen fur die Durchfuhrung des Begutachtungsprozesses erhoht wird. Geringere Reliabilitat ist schon eher ein Defizit, dem jedoch durch Standardisierung in den Verfahren entgegenzuwirken versucht wird. Ein Dilemma bei der Verwendung von Peer Review wird sichtbar, das auch in anderen Verfahren zur Qualitatsmessung von wissenschaftlichem Output generell auftritt: Standardisierung ist ein standiges Begleitprodukt. Trotz vorhandener methodischer Schwachen wird Peer Review sicherlich auch weiterhin als Werkzeug zur wissenschaftlichen Qualitatsmessung und Selektion von zu veroffentlichenden Artikeln in Zeitschriften verwendet werden. Mit dem Aufkommen von anderen, weniger reglementierten Publikationsplattformen (wie z. B. denen der Open-Access-Bewegung) erhoht sich allerdings der Legitimationsdruck auf das Peer Review-Verfahren, weshalb sicherlich eine weiterfuhrende und vertiefende Betrachtung der Reliabilitat und Validitat dieses Verfahrens unerlasslich ist. (DIPF/ Orig.)

Adding value to figures: a web-based European public health information system

In 2008 a prototype, web-based system was launched which provided information for different user groups interested in European public health topics. The EUPHIX system contained scientifically sound data, with presentations as well as textual information. The information was structured according to the European Community Health Indicators (ECHI) shortlist. The information included different types of data presentations (tables, interactive graphs and maps), explanatory texts and overviews of the data sources and the literature used. The content was produced by a network of European experts according to a structured, peer-reviewed editorial process. Thus EUPHIX provided an easily accessible, comprehensive, state-of-the-art information source. To ensure that it will continue, financial support will be needed. Co-ownership by the European Commission and the Member States seems an appropriate solution.

New directions for JRST

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 47, Issue 1 p. 2-5 EditorialFree Access New directions for JRST† Joseph Krajcik, Corresponding Author Joseph Krajcik Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259 Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. Angela Calabrese Barton, Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.Search for more papers by this authorAngela Calabrese Barton, Corresponding Author Angela Calabrese Barton Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. Angela Calabrese Barton, Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.Search for more papers by this author Joseph Krajcik, Corresponding Author Joseph Krajcik Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259 Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. Angela Calabrese Barton, Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.Search for more papers by this authorAngela Calabrese Barton, Corresponding Author Angela Calabrese Barton Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Joseph Krajcik, Associate Dean for Research; Professor, Science Education; Co-Director, IDEA Institute. School of Education, 610 East University, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. Angela Calabrese Barton, Professor, Teacher Education. Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, 327 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20360Citations: 1 † We would like to thank Bob Geier for his feedback and editorial assistance. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of American Medical Association, 287, 2786– 2790. Kaplan, D. (2005). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(3), 321– 323. Lawrence, P.A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259– 261. Wilson, A. (2007). Journal impact factors are inflated. BioScience, 57(7), 550– 551. Citing Literature Volume47, Issue1January 2010Pages 2-5 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort: A Welcome Addition to the Maternal and Child Health Field and Its Data Bases

In this issue of the Maternal Child health Journal, a series of seven articles are being published, all deriving from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLSB). The ECLS-B is a major, new, nationally representative longitudinal MCH data base––following over 10,000 children from birth through kindergarten––which will be of great potential research, practice and policy value for the MCH field. The majority of these articles were initially presented at a Department of Education-sponsored conference to highlight the new data base and some of its potential analytic uses. Dr. Donna Petersen, the MCH Journal Editor, learned of this and expressed interest in potentially publishing these presentations. After much editorial scrutiny, peer review and article revisions, this issue celebrates the new ECLS-Birth Cohort and its value to the MCH field through these publications. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort represents a new MCH longitudinal data base––the first nationally representative data base to focus on children’s early health, development, care and education from birth (and even prenatally) through kindergarten entry and readiness for school, with an explicit methodological plan to follow a large cohort of children longitudinally. The ECLS-B also represents a continuation of an existing MCH related data base, the NCHS National Natality Surveys––the heretofore periodic retrospective follow back surveys (follow back to informants named on vital records) that since 1963 and most recently as the 1988 National Infant and Maternal Health Survey (NIMHS) have provided the MCH field with detailed, nationally representative, information on maternal characteristics/experiences, reproductive health outcomes and perinatal health services received. The ECLS-B expands upon the 1988 NIMHS data base and its 1991 Longitudinal Follow-up, with a planned, not opportunistic, longitudinal study of the U.S. national birth cohort of 2001. Several strategic features mark this new MCH data base. First, the ECLS-B data base has as its ultimate focus school readiness, and not simply positive reproductive and child health outcomes. School readiness is a critical developmental (and public policy) goal for our society. Consequently, the prime ECLS-B leadership derives from the Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education (DOE) (with Westat and then RTI as the prime contractors), in partnership with NCHS and many other federal agencies (MCHB, NIH, etc.). The ECLS-B allows for a prospective rather than simply retrospective or cross-sectional examination of school readiness as a development outcome. Second, the ECLS-B data base reflects the blending (and not always easily) of the interests of two sometimes distinct professional worlds: the MCH, reproductive, pediatric and public health communities; and the child development, developmental psychology and educational communities. Too often these worlds run in parallel to each other, with separate funding streams, research interests, and programmatic initiatives; and yet they both deal with the same children and their families. Third, this data base reflects a growing federal commitment to the development and implementation of longitudinal data bases, and the enhancement of longitudinal methodology and conceptualizations. Indeed, the ECLS-Birth Cohort will overlap with the existing ECLS-Kindergarten Cohort that follows children’s early school educational, cognitive, social-emotional and physical development from kindergarten through 8th grade. And the ECLS-B can be seen as a M. Kotelchuck (&) Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, 801 Massachusetts Avenue, Cross-town Room 434, Boston, MA 02118-2605, USA e-mail: kotelchuck@bu.edu

Editorial Policy and Peer Review

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Special announcement: an updated mission statement and a new publisher for the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

The most immediately apparent change to the Journal is reflected in its updated mission statement: ‘‘Excellence in research and knowledge translation in anesthesia, pain, perioperative medicine, and critical care’’. Following a period of consultation with the Editorial Board, we agreed on the importance of building on the mission first introduced in 2000, while highlighting the Journal’s broad, yet defined, mandate. The updated mission statement reflects the editorial, scientific, continuing medical education (CME), and related content that is published in the Journal. As to advancing new knowledge, the Journal publishes reports of original investigations, meta-analyses and cohort studies, and a limited number of clinically-related basic science studies originating in Canada and internationally. With regard to knowledge translation, the editorial and scientific content continues to focus, to the greatest extent possible, on a bench-to-bedside approach, and special articles will address innovation in medical education and topics of broader perioperative medical interest to our readership. Also, readers increasingly turn to their journals as an invaluable and effective means to advance their continuing medical education. In this regard, the Journal’s commitment to foster the development of accredited CME content is reaffirmed. Within the context of a specialty journal, the Journal’s updated mission statement also reflects the fact that the scope of its content is expansive. While anesthesia remains a core clinical, research, and educational activity for many readers of the Journal, anesthesiologists are recognized experts in acute and chronic pain and in the expanding field of perioperative medicine. Critical care medicine is the final content domain of the mission statement. Modern critical care medicine is a multidisciplinary field involving specialists in anesthesia, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and neonatology. Going forward, we anticipate that contributions to critical care medicine, from both Canadian and international authors, will increasingly reflect the roots of these multidisciplinary backgrounds. While the mission statement has been updated, the Journal title will remain in all instances: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthesie. We are very proud to publish in Canada’s two official languages, and the English and French versions of the mission statement reflect this unique element of the Canadian linguistic heritage of the Journal. In order to advance the mission of the Journal, we anticipate some restructuring and expansion of the Editorial Board. We look forward to developing a senior editorial team to ensure our ability to capture interesting and innovative content, to provide excellence in editorial peer review, and to publish according to the best internationally accepted standards of scientific reporting. Soon, new associate editors and guest editors will be appointed, D. R. Miller, MD (&) Department of Anesthesia, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Room 1409, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8L6 e-mail: dmiller@ottawahospital.on.ca

2009 Theme Issue on Violence and Human Rights—Call for Papers

TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (TBI) IS AMONG THE MOST SEvere outcomes associated with violence. In the United States, TBI is a contributing factor to 30.5% of all injury-related deaths. The fourth leading cause of TBI (after falls, “struck by/against,” and motor vehicle crashes) is assault, which accounted for 15 341 hospitalizations and 5813 deaths in the years 2002 through 2006. In this issue of JAMA, Zafonte et al report the results of a randomized trial of citicoline, a widely used pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with TBI. In this trial, 9.3% of the study participants were injured in assaults. Zafonte et al found that citicoline treatment did not result in improvement of cognitive or functional status, and as acknowledged in an accompanying editorial by Ruff and Riechers, there are no specific, evidence-based therapies for patients with complicated mild or moderate TBI resulting from assault or any other mechanism. Randomized trials of interventions for the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with TBI are clearly needed, even if the interventions turn out to be ineffective. The value of “negative” studies is to expose critical gaps in knowledge and redirect attention to promising alternatives. To further promote the scientific evaluation of promising interventions for the causes of violence and human rights abuses and the clinical management of their related health effects, including TBI, we invite manuscripts for another JAMA theme issue on violence and human rights, to be published on August 7, 2013. Authors may submit manuscripts addressing any topic related to violence, war, civil conflict, or human rights abuses. Randomized controlled trials of preventive, therapeutic, or rehabilitative interventions are of primary interest, but we will also consider reports of observational studies and systematic reviews that address new and important findings in the fields of violence and human rights, as well as scholarly Viewpoints. Manuscripts received by March 15, 2013, will have the best chance of consideration for publication in this theme issue. Submitted manuscripts will undergo JAMA’s usual rigorous editorial evaluation and peer review. Please follow JAMA’s instructions for authors for manuscript preparation and submission. We look forward to receiving manuscripts and inquiries about prospective articles for this theme issue.

Categorización de las revistas españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas en RESH

The aim of this note is to communicate and explain the last additions included in the RESH website: an integrated evaluation system based on a diverse range of indicators on editorial quality, peer review, international visibility and impact index. The team developing RESH has been working on establishing a weighted system. This system assigns a different weight for each type of indicator thus enabling the construction of a journal ranking in each discipline or in each sub-discipline. Evaluators, authors or editors can find, in the cited website, the position of each journal in the context of its subject area, and the data justifying the final position of each journal.

Little evidence to support the use of editorial peer review to ensure quality of published research

Studies were identified using the following sources: CINAHL (Cumulative Index to nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation Abstracts, Embase, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Medline, PsycINFO and PubMed. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies were included that had two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and that reported original research, regardless of publication status. Because of the variety of study designs, unit of randomisation and outcome measures, a descriptive review was carried out. Twenty-eight studies were included. There was no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/ or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (nine studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (two studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (one study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (three studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (two studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability. At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. The methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be launched urgently.

On editorial practice and peer review

On editorial practice and peer review

Bringing peer review to patents

Tougher examination of patent applications reduces anti–commons effects while reducing the frequency and costs of litigation. Modelled after open source/free software collaborations, the “Peer to Patent” initiative seeks to improve the quality of patents by developing a Web–based infrastructure whereby volunteer experts external to the PTO’s review applications, assemble prior art information, and submit the results of their collective work back to the Patent Office examiner. This paper endorses the spirit and goals of the “Peer to Patent” initiative, but questions its reliance on the open source model. A discussion of the functions of peer review, the meaning of peer, and the motivations of the reviewers in different contexts indicates that editorial peer review — not open source — can provide a more effective model for integrating peer review of patent applications into PTO practices.

From experimentation to coordination in the evaluation of Spanish scientific journals in the humanities and social sciences

An overview of the current scientific journals evaluation initiatives in Spain is presented. Most of these models are focused on Social Sciences and Humanities journals because of their special features and are targeted to research evaluation activities. Indicators developed in these systems are analysed, including the methodological difficulties that they entail and the relative merits of each in terms of efficiency. Moreover, the criteria used by the evaluation agencies in relation to scientific journals are examined. Finally, a model based on a diverse range of indicators on editorial quality, international visibility, peer review and impact is proposed.

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals. To estimate the effect of processes in editorial peer review. The following databases were searched to June 2004: CINAHL, Ovid, Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: ACP Journal Club, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed. We included prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and reporting original research, regardless of publication status. We hoped to find studies identifying good submissions on the basis of: importance of the topic dealt with, relevance of the topic to the journal, usefulness of the topic, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of reporting. Because of the diversity of study questions, viewpoints, methods, and outcomes, we carried out a descriptive review of included studies grouping them by broad study question. We included 28 studies. We found no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (9 studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (2 studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (1 study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (3 studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (2 studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability. At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.

Invited Critique: Fostering a Plurality of Voices in the Burn Literature: A Concept Not Common to Scholarly Consideration of the Editorial Peer Review Process

Invited Critique: Fostering a Plurality of Voices in the Burn Literature: A Concept Not Common to Scholarly Consideration of the Editorial Peer Review Process

Attenti Alle Bufale ('Beware of Red Herrings'), or, How toMake Evidence-Based Medicine Work for You

During the year, busy healthcare workers have little time for reading or reflecting. This fact conflicts with the need to keep up-to-date with what is going on in medicine and to track the avalanche of paper, audio and electronic inputs we receive. The obvious starting point is a topic of interest, but we also need to select something which has some kind of credibility, either scientific or ethical or both (although some tell me there is no difference between the two). So we now have two linked problems: the quantity and the quality of the scientific works that we read. The quality issue seems to be an easy one to solve: if something is in print it has undergone ‘routine quality control measures’ such as peer review and should be good enough, especially if published on the more prestigious journals. And if something has passed peer review then the quantity issue can be solved quickly by reliance on reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, evidence-based journals and the good old network of friends and colleagues who ‘give you the wink’ on a good piece of research. Alas, not everything is so easy in life, research or medical practice. Often what seems is not what is. Let's start from quality control mechanisms as they apply to the publication of research papers and then move on to the issue of quantity. Quality (essentially editorial peer review, publishing's main quality control mechanism) is the key to understanding the issue of quantity.

Through a glass darkly

Writing in Nature in 1977, Thomas Jukes remarked dryly, “it has been said that the warp that holds the complex fabric of science together is peer review, and the woof is the noise made by scientists who complain about it” (Jukes, 1977). In 30 years, it would seem that little has changed, except perhaps that the ‘woofs’ have become louder and more numerous, periodically peaking when published papers are revealed as instances of data fabrication and fraud. Nevertheless, in conjunction with other changes in the world of scientific publishing, peer review—the process and its goals—has come under increased scrutiny and there are some hints of potential changes. ![][1] Peer review is, of course, not restricted to manuscripts submitted for publication. The whole fabric of research funding, academic careers, and the futures of research groups, departments and whole institutes, rests on examination and assessment by ‘peers’—experts in a given research area who are expected to give a critical and, despite the fact that they are often competitors, fair judgement of scientific performance. As such, reviews are frequently, and in large measure, based on scientists' track records—as reflected in their published work and its impact on a particular field. Editorial peer review, and its quality and fairness, therefore have a central role in all other assessments. Although modern peer review probably dates back no earlier than the invention of the photocopier, the principle that any piece of work submitted for publication should be subject to prior inspection by a select group of experts probably originated in the mid‐eighteenth century, when the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh adopted this procedure for screening contributions to their Transactions (Kronick, 1990). However, as related by Ray Spier in his historical account of the peer‐review process (Spier, 2002), the idea that anything potentially challenging the orthodoxy of … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif

Re: The Prevalence of Psychological Morbidity in West Bank Palestinian Children

Dear Editor: We are writing to bring to your attention our concerns about the abovereferenced article (1). We believe that it is an example of the misuse of science to further a political agenda. Below we list a few of the significant scientific flaws we found our review of the article. Together, they raise questions about the integrity and credibility of the research. The authors hypothesize that encroachment caused what they characterized as psychological morbidity, but they did not define that term, measure it validly, or empirically test their hypothesis. Along with unsubstantiated anecdotal and observation, the authors cite only a political source (Noam Chomsky), not a scientific reference, to support their hypothesis. Although they assert that Palestinian children feared the Jewish settlement communities near the Bethlehem-area villages studied, they fail to cite a single documented case wherein Jewish residents were involved violence against children, and they ignore the documented evidence that children from a Palestinian school stoned hundreds of Israelis on a frequently travelled road the same area. The authors also fail to note the well-documented campaign of incitement to violence to which Palestinian children were exposed. That exposure bears directly on interpretation of the results and is a credible alternative explanation for the possible morbidity found. Although the authors report using the Arabic Rutter A2 scale for assessment of chidren's behaviour, the reference cited did not indicate that this instrument (2) had been standardized on a Palestinian Arab population. The scale is no longer used by Palestinian researchers (P Vostanis, personal communication, 2004 October 4). Other references cited did not address or support contentions the study. The authors cite a reference to support the claim that displacement and military occupation since 1948 have caused violent and psychological pressures. A check of the reference (3) finds that it did not study or support those contentions. The authors also cite a study (4) to support the contention that in the absence of direct traumatic events, poor psychological status may arise from anticipating such events (1, p 62), although the subjects of their study were clearly not, as our authors imply, living a period of relative calm. To summarize, the article contains numerous assertions not supported by the authors' own references, ignores available data that can explain the results, fails to define terms properly, and presents as conclusions unsubstantiated conjecture. None of the authors has a mental health background, and their use of references that do not support their statements calls their credibility into question. We are surprised that your editorial peer review process failed to find these errors. Mixing politics with science is a risky proposition, especially without solid evidence to support the conclusions reached. The complete analysis of the article is available at www.spme.net/Mansdorf 10_20_04.pdf We urge all to read it.

Electronic Scientific Information, Open Access, and Editorial Peer Review

ABSTRACT This paper reviews some of the many changes to publishing resulting from the electronic environment and focuses on how open access may impact or alter the editorial peer review process. Developments of particular importance to editorial peer review include the impact of electronic journals (e-journals) on scholarly publishing in general, pre-print repositories, open access journals, and access to unpublished data. New pricing models are changing the economics of scholarly publishing, and there are promises of quick reviews that may impact the peer review process itself. The paper ends with a discussion of the role the government is playing in developing a workable open access model.

Le processus d'expertise éditoriale avant et avec Internet

We first examine the different phases of the editorial peer review process leading from the submission of a manuscript to its acceptance in a scientific journal. Evaluation biases are then presented in relation to the author's identification, institutional affiliation, language and the conservative stance of the reviewers. Several researches concerning the efficiency for correcting biases are analysed: they concern masking author's identity and their professional affiliation, the disclosure of reviewer's names, and an increase in their number. The cost and quality control of published papers as well as a necessary training for reviewers are then considered. The way in which the peer review process is changed or not with Internet is presented (how computer communication can increase blind review or, conversely, open it in order to favour exchanges between authors, editors and reviewers). A mention is made in the journal JIME to illustrate the way the peer review process can be deeply transformed. Finally, psychologists are invited to engage themselves in research for testing the functioning of the editorial peer review.