Background Academic biomedical journals use peer review and editing to help to select and improve the quality of articles.
We have investigated whether articles accepted by the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, the Dutch Journal of Medicine, were improved after peer review and editing (post-acceptance scientific and copy editing).
Methods 400 readers of the journal (100 each of medical students, recent medical graduates, general practitioners, and specialists) were invited to participate in a questionnaire survey.
The first 25 from each group who agreed to participate were included.
We posted a pack containing a set of identically appearing typescripts (ie, blinding) of the submitted, accepted, and published versions of 50 articles that had been published in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.
Each evaluator received two of the sets of versions, and each set was evaluated by one person from each group.
The package also included two questionnaires : the first was used to compare the submitted with the accepted version (25 questions), the second compared the accepted with the published version (17 questions).
The questions were answered on five-point scales, and were about the quality of the articles or were general/overall scores.
We analysed the data as scores of 3-5 (ie, improvement) versus 1-2.
Findings After peer review, the quality in 14 of 23 questions (61%) was significantly improved (p=O. 03 or smaller). (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Information scientifique technique, Evaluation, Evaluation interpair, Qualité, Questionnaire, Médecine
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Scientific technical information, Evaluation, Peer review, Quality, Questionnaire, Medicine
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0039478
Code Inist : 002B30A05. Création : 21/05/1997.