Skip Navigation

Cardiovascular Research 2002 56(3):339-346; doi:10.1016/S0008-6363(02)00712-5
© 2002 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Opthof, T.
Right arrow Articles by Janse, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Opthof, T.
Right arrow Articles by Janse, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2002, European Society of Cardiology

The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias

Tobias Opthofa,*, Ruben Coronelb,c and Michiel J. Jansed

aDepartment of Medical Physiology, University Medical Center, PO Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands
bDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
cExperimental and Molecular Cardiology Group, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
dEditorial Office Cardiovascular Research, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

t.opthof@med.uu.nl

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-30-253-8900; fax: +31-30-253-9036

accepted 3 October 2002

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   1 Introduction
 
Editors are facing larger numbers of submitted manuscripts than they can publish [1]. In their selection process of papers they depend on the advice of one or more peer reviewers [1]. It is thus important that the process is fair and as unbiased as possible.

The origin of ‘peer review’ dates back to 1752, when the Royal Society of London obtained the fiscal responsibility for the Philosophical Transactions [2]. There are few historical accounts of the evolution of editorial peer review [3]. Today, specialized research on the peer review system is only just starting to emerge and has been the topic of four world congresses [4–7]. This type of research focuses—amongst many other issues—on themes as whether or not masking the identity of authors to reviewers influences the reports of reviewers and whether or not anonymity of reviewers is a relevant topic [4–7].

Previous . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   2 Can editors predict the priority assigned to manuscripts by reviewers ?
 

   3 Can reviewers predict citation ?
 

   4 Can editors predict citation ?
 

   5 Does bias exist for individual reviewers?
 

   6 Geographical aspects
 

   7 Geographical bias
 
7.1 Italy
7.2 USA
7.3 Japan
7.4 United Kingdom
7.5 France
7.6 Other countries

   8 Conclusions
 

   9. Summary of results
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cardiovasc ResHome page
M. J. Janse
The Amsterdam years
Cardiovasc Res, August 1, 2007; 75(3): 451 - 452.
[Full Text] [PDF]