Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Many variations exist in editorial peer review practices in clinical medicine journals. These practices will become more crucial as medical journals make more of their contents available via the World Wide Web. This paper explores five fundamental dimensions of editorial peer review variations: (1) the extent to which manuscripts are subjected to peer review; (2) the sequence of decision points in the peer review process; (3) blinding practices; (4) acceptance rates for submitted manuscripts; and (5) guidelines stating editors' expectations of reviewers. Variations in editorial peer review practices make it difficult to define a "peer reviewed journal" in clinical medicine. Research in this relatively new area of inquiry has not established the relative strengths of each variation in relation to a journal's quality.
Jonathan D. Eldredge (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: