logo BDSP

Base documentaire


Votre avis nous intéresse

Le réseau BDSP met en oeuvre un projet d'innovation et d'amélioration de ses services, dans le souci constant de proposer des contenus de qualité adaptés aux besoins des utilisateurs.

Identifier de nouvelles sources de financements est la condition nécessaire pour assurer la poursuite et la pérennité de cet outil unique qu'est la BDSP, tout en le faisant évoluer.

Pour définir un nouveau modèle économique, nous avons besoin de votre avis : merci de répondre à notre enquête (temps estimé : 5 minutes).

Participer maintenant
Participer plus tard J'ai déjà participé

  1. Readers'evaluation of effect of peer reveiw and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschift voor Geneeskunde.

    Article - En anglais

    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

    Logo du centre Notice produite par :
    Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique

    Cote : 97-0039478

    Code Inist : 002B30A05. Création : 21/05/1997.