Who's Responsible?
1993; American College of Physicians; Volume: 118; Issue: 8 Linguagem: Inglês
10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00014
ISSN1539-3704
Autores Tópico(s)Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
ResumoEditorials15 April 1993Who's Responsible?Robert H. Fletcher, MD, Editor and Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, EditorRobert H. Fletcher, MD, EditorSearch for more papers by this author and Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, EditorSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00014 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Authors of articles in Annals are responsible for the honesty of their work and for what is reported in their article.Editors select articles for publication and try to help authors report their work clearly, assisted by reviewers and editorial staff. Editors' performance is apparent to readers in every issue and Annals' Editors are responsible to the Board of Regents of the American College of Physicians for the overall conduct of the journal but not editorial decisions. We select articles for Annals because we believe they present important information or points of view; there are no official Annals positions.Annals' readers, ...References1. Glass B. The ethical basis of science. Science. 1965; 150:1257-8. Google Scholar2. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324:424-8. Google Scholar3. Guidelines for authorship. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. BMJ. 1985; 291:722. Google Scholar4. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1990; 263:1317-441. Google Scholar5. Cicchetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci. 1991; 14:119-86. Google Scholar6. Bailar JC. Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals of peer review. Behav Brain Sci. 1991; 14:137-8 Google Scholar7. Editorial freedom. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. BMJ. 1988; 297:1182. Google Scholar8. Death of a journal (Editorial). Lancet 1987; 2:1442. Google Scholar9. Bernard A, ed. Rotton Rejections.Wainscott, NY: Pushcart Press; 1990. Google Scholar10. Bell BM, Murden R. Surviving sudden death: Whatever happened to Webster? (Letter). Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:172. Google Scholar11. Perlroth MG. Survey research (Letter). Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114: 706. Google Scholar12. Rennie D. Lark-and-elephant pie meets humble pie (Letter). Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118:320. Google Scholar13. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Early release of research results. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114:698-700. Google Scholar14. Smith R. Auditing BMJ decision making. BMJ. 1993; 306:3-4. Google Scholar15. SignedThe Lancet. Lancet. 1993; 341:24. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByThe State of Peer Review in Criminology: Literary Theory, Perceptions, and the Catch-22 Metaphor of Peer ReviewMedical editors, journal owners, and the sacking of George LundbergMultiple authorship revisited: How much is enough?Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review 15 April 1993Volume 118, Issue 8Page: 645-646KeywordsBehaviorDatabasesDisclosureGamesPeer reviewResearch laboratories Issue Published: 15 April 1993 CopyrightCopyright © 1993 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
Referência(s)