Do Readers and Peer Reviewers Agree on Manuscript Quality?
JAMAPublished 13 July 1994
Amy C. Justice
Citations43
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score5.35
SNIP10.71
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
Readers, like most peer reviewers, are generally satisfied with the quality of manuscripts but would like research articles to be more relevant to their clinical practice.
Abstract
Readers, like most peer reviewers, are generally satisfied with the quality of manuscripts but would like research articles to be more relevant to their clinical practice.
Keywords
MedicineHealth ProfessionsArts and Humanities
Clinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsClinical biostatistics: LIV. The biostatistics of concordance
1,103 Citations1981Michael S. Kramer, Alvan R. Feinstein
Annals of Internal MedicineManuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i>
320 Citations1994Steven N. Goodman, Jesse Berlin +2 more
Whether the quality of accepted manuscripts was improved by peer-review and editorial processes and, if it was, which aspects were most improved, is studied.