The peer-review process of the Journal of Neurosurgery

Special article

Katrina S. Firlik M.D.1 and Andrew D. Firlik M.D.1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Page Range:
364–370
Volume/Issue:
Volume 90: Issue 2
DOI link:
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1999.90.2.0364
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Click here for subscription options

  • Purchase Now

    USD  $45.00

  • JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

    USD  $515.00

  • JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

    USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

✓ Peer review is the process by which scientific articles are evaluated and selected for publication. To clarify this procedure for readers and writers, the authors present a detailed description of peer review at the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in the context of other journals. They discuss the unique characteristics of JNS's peer-review process and how it contributes to the quality of the JNS.

Volume 90: Issue 2 (Feb 1999)

in Journal of Neurosurgery
Cover Journal of Neurosurgery

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Click here for subscription options

  • JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

    USD  $515.00

  • JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

    USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online
  • 1.

    Baue AE: Reflections of a former editor. Arch Surg 128:1305–1314, 1993 Baue AE: Reflections of a former editor. Arch Surg 128:1305–1314, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Black N, , van Rooyen S, & Godlee F, et al: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280:231–233, 1998 Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280:231–233, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Bucy PC: The Journal of Neurosurgery. Its origin and development. J Neurosurg 80:160–165, 1994 Bucy PC: The Journal of Neurosurgery. Its origin and development. J Neurosurg 80:160–165, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Chew FS: Manuscript peer review: general concepts and the AJR process. AJR 160:409–411, 1993 Chew FS: Manuscript peer review: general concepts and the AJR process. AJR 160:409–411, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Editors: The journal's peer review process. N Engl J Med 321:837–839, 1989 Editors : The journal's peer review process. N Engl J Med 321:837–839, 1989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Fisher M, , Friedman SB, & Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 272:143–146, 1994 Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 272:143–146, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Friedman DP: Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment. AJR 164:1007–1009, 1995 Friedman DP: Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment. AJR 164:1007–1009, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Godlee F, , Gale CR, & Martyn CN: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:237–240, 1998 Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN: Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:237–240, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Institute for Scientific Information: 1996 Science Citation Index. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1997 Institute for Scientific Information : 1996 Science Citation Index. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Justice AC, , Cho MK, & Winker MA, et al: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:240–242, 1998 (Editorial) Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, et al: Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:240–242, 1998 (Editorial)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Laband DN, & Piette MJ: A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 272:147–149, 1994 Laband DN, Piette MJ: A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 272:147–149, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Nylenna M, , Riis P, & Karlsson Y: Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 272:149–151, 1994 Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y: Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 272:149–151, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Rennie D, & Flanagin A: The second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 272:91, 1994 Rennie D, Flanagin A: The second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA 272:91, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Siegelman SS: Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178:637–642, 1991 Siegelman SS: Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178:637–642, 1991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Stephenson J: Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review. JAMA 278:1389–1391, 1997 Stephenson J: Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review. JAMA 278:1389–1391, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    van Rooyen S, , Godlee F, & Evans S, et al: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280:234–237, 1998 van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 280:234–237, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 961 197 11
Full Text Views 274 36 2
PDF Downloads 156 31 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0