Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
10
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1990-3-23
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
To test the hypothesis that no important deficits would be identified on further review of accepted manuscripts, and that such manuscripts would be recommended for publication on rereview, we sent manuscripts that had been accepted for publication, after review and revision, for rereview by new referees who were unaware of the status of the manuscripts. Each review was evaluated independently by two assistant editors to determine whether substantive criticisms were identified by the new reviewers. The majority of manuscripts were thought by the new reviewers to have defects that warranted further revision, but the problems noted were often dissimilar. However, 80% of the manuscripts were recommended for publication and others were judged suitable for publication, although not at a high priority. The assistant editors frequently differed in their judgments whether a given criticism of a reviewer warranted further revision; nevertheless, there was infrequent disagreement regarding the basic decision for acceptance or rejection.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
AIM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Mar
|
| pubmed:issn |
0098-7484
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:day |
9
|
| pubmed:volume |
263
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
1369-71
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1990
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill 27599-7230.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|