We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
This Week in JAMA |

This Week in JAMA FREE

JAMA. 1998;280(3):207. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.207.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Authorship is the most tangible evidence of responsibility and credit for research and plays a central role in scholarly recognition and promotion. Four articles find that authorship disputes at one institution are increasing; most authors meet the authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, although most don't know what the criteria are; the number of senior authors has increased in the last 20 years; and both guest authors (persons who don't meet authorship criteria) and ghost authors (persons who have contributed significantly but aren't named) are frequent.


Biomedical studies are judged by peer review, but can peer review itself be improved? Seven studies evaluate peer review and find that masking reviewers to authors' identities to reduce possible bias was difficult. However when masking was accomplished, it did not improve quality of peer review, nor did reviewers unmasking their identity to other reviewers or to authors by signing their reviews. No reviewer characteristics were able to identify which peer reviewers provide the best-quality reviews.


Bias can threaten the accuracy of the biomedical literature. In this group of 7 studies, multiple sources of potential bias are evaluated: studies with statistically significant results are more likely to be published and come to publication more quickly; US reviewers seem to prefer manuscripts from the United States; and authors of reviews preferentially cite articles from their discipline and country.


The quality of articles, the topic of these 7 studies, concerns readers, reviewers, editors, and, indirectly, patients. Abstracts, the most widely read part of a manuscript, were found to have multiple inconsistencies with the text, but instructions to authors did not improve abstract quality. Structured abstracts did not improve reporting in the text of the manuscript. Guidelines for economic submissions did not improve quality of submitted or published works, and randomized trials generally do not include a discussion of the totality of the available evidence. On the other hand, reviewers valued receiving related materials to help them with their reviews, and Cochrane reviews were more rigorous and updated more often than paper-based journal reviews.


Do experts know what readers want? What editorial training do editors receive? No, and usually not much, are the answers provided by 2 of the studies on this topic.


Jacques Villon, Le Philosophe, French, 1930.

See Article

Peer Review in Prague

"In this issue of THE JOURNAL, we publish 33 articles, based on presentations in Prague, Czech Republic, on subjects surrounding the publication of science relevant to clinicians. . . . There had been [before 1986] remarkably few serious investigations into its workings, though no shortage of opinion written in the absence of fact."

See Article


For your patients: a primer on medical research.

See Article




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.