Resources for Editors from Sources Other Than WAME
Prepared by the Editorial Policy, Education, and Web Committees
Updated May 15, 2011
This is not intended to be a complete list. If you have additional suggestions for this list, please contact Margaret Winker.
- Policies of Related Organizations
- Selected Books and Web Sites
- Journal-Based Resources
- Ethics Web Resources
- Peer Reviewer Instructional Guide
- Journal Instructions for Authors
- Other Organizations for Editors
Policies of Related Organizations
For WAME Policy Statements, see http://www.wame.org/resources/policies/
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Council of Science Editors
Note: The ICMJE and WAME do not assume responsibility for the accuracy of translations.
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(Korean, 2006 edition)
Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas
Requisitos Uniformes para los Manuscritos Enviados a Revisitas Biomédicas: Redacción y Edición para Publicación Biomédica (Spanish, 2003 edition) PDF
Requisitos Uniformes para los Manuscritos Enviados a las Revistas Biomédicas: Muestra de Referencias (Spanish, 2003 edition) PDF
English version appears at www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html
Requisitos uniformes para originais submetidos a revistas biomédicas
(Portugese, 2003 edition)
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals
(Chinese, 2000 edition)
Exigences uniformes pour les manuscrits présentés aux revues biomédicales
(French, 2000 edition)
Office of Research Integrity
Back to top
Selected Books and Web Sites
Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 10th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
Bailar JC, Angell M, Boots S, et al. Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication. Bethesda, Md: Council of Biology Editors; 1990.
Style Manual Committee. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. 7th ed. Reston, VA: The Council; 2006.
Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review in Health Sciences. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 1999.
Hudson Jones A, McLellan F. Ethical issues in biomedical publication. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2000.
Huth EJ. Writing and Publishing in Medicine. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1999.
Lock S. The future of medical journals. London, England: British Medical Journal; 1991.
Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 1993.
National Academy of Science. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
EQUATOR Network [Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research]: Guidelines for reporting medical research and other resources. http://www.equator-network.org
Journal Instructions for Authors: Links to the Instructions for Authors of many journals, compiled by the University of Toledo's Mulford Library. http://mulford.meduohio.edu/instr/
Peer Review Congresses:
Peer Review in Scientific Publishing. Papers from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago, Ill: Council of Biology Editors Inc; 1991.
Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. In: Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1990;263:1309-1456.
The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1994;272:91-170.
The Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1998;280:213-302.
The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 2002;287:2745-2898.
Back to top
Rennie D, Yank V, Emanual L. When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278:579-585.
Wilcox LJ. Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA. 1998;280:216-217.[Full Text]
Bates T, Anic A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA. 2004;292:86-88. [Full Text]
Bhopal RS, Rankin JM, McColl E, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ. 1997;314:1009-1012. [Full Text]
Drenth JPH. Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. JAMA. 1998;280:219-221. [Full Text]
Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci Eng Ethics. 1996;2:89-114.
Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222-224. [Full Text]
Hoen WP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJPM. What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names: a study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). JAMA. 1998;280:217-218. [Full Text]
Yank V, Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in the Lancet. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:661-670. [Full Text]
Back to top
Deary IJ, Whiteman MC, Fowkes FGR. Medical research and the popular media. Lancet. 1998;351:1726-1727. [Full Text]
Johnson T. Medicine and the Media. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:87-92. [Full Text]
Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet. 1996;347:1600-1603.[Full Text]
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612-2621. [Abstract]
Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan R, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1645-1650. [Full Text]
Back to top
Peer Review and EditingOpinion
Laine C, Mulrow C. Peer review: integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:1038-1040. [Full Text]
Ray JG. Judging the judges: The role of journal editors. QJM. 2002;95:769-774. [Full Text]
Rennie D. Editors and Owners: stretching reputation too far. JAMA. 1999;282:783-784.[Abstract]
Schroter S, Black N, Evans N, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673.
Berlin JA, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet. 1997;350:185-186. [Full Text]
Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden M. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer review study. Lancet. 1998;352:441-445. [Full Text]
Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-233. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA. 1998;280:229-231. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2781-2783. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Schriger DL. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviews. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:323-328. [Full Text]
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer review quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318-322. [Abstract]
Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, et al. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? JAMA. 1998;280:243-245. [Full Text]
Das Sinha S, Sahni P, Nundy S. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews? Natl Med J India. 1999;12:210-213.
Davis RM, Mullner M. Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:513-528. [Abstract]
Day FC, Schriger DL, Todd C, Wears RL. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40:329-333. [Full Text]
Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:422-428.
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. 1998;280:237-240. [Full Text]
Good CD, Parente ST, Rennie D, Fletcher SW. A worldwide assessment of medical journal editors' practices and needs: results of a survey by the World Association of Medical Editors. S Afr Med J. 1999;89:397-401.
Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21.
Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240-242. [Full Text]
Marusic A, Mestrovic T, Petrovecki M, Marusic M. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croatian Med J. 1998;39:3-9. [Full Text]
Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson I. Multiple blinded reviews of the same manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149-151. [Full Text]
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110-1111. [Abstract]
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:267-269. [Full Text]
Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA. 2002;287:2795-2796. [Full Text]
Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against unconventional therapy. J Royal Society Med. 2000;93:164-167.
Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA. 1994;272:119-121. [Full Text]
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer rreview: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673-675.
Sweitzer BJ, Cullen DJ. How well does a journal's peer review process function? a survey of authors' opinions. JAMA. 1994;272:152-153. [Full Text]
Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:234-237. [Full Text]
Wang G, Zhang B. Research design and statistical methods in Chinese medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280:283-285. [Full Text]
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47-51.
Back to top
Edelson AM. On the future of scholarly journals. Science. 1998:359.
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998;280:254-257. [Full Text]
Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. Am J Med. 2000;109:131-135.
Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM, Gold JL, Dergal JM, Binnis MA, Streiner DL, Gurwitz JH. Comparison of review articles publiched in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA. 2002;287:2853-2856. [Full Text]
Von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004;291:974-980. [Full Text]
Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998;280:257-259. [Full Text]
Back to top
Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/masm.pdf
Pharmaceutical Company Good Publication Practices Guidelines.
Available at http://www.gpp-guidelines.org
Barrie JM, Presti DE. Digital plagiarism: the web giveth and the web shall taketh. JMIR. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e6/index.htm
Callaham ML. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publications. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:82-89.
Eysenbach G. Report of a case of cyberplagiarism: and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using the Internet. JMIR. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e4/index.htm
Franken EA Jr. Duplicate publication: crime and punishment. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:407-408.
Horton R. Revising the research record. Lancet. 1995;346:1610-1611
Huston P, Moher D. Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet. 1996;347:1024-1026.
Smith R. Draft code of conduct for medical editors. BMJ. 2003;327:1010.
Botkin JR, McMahon WM, Smith KR, Nash JE. Privacy and confidentiality in the publication of pedigrees: a survey of investigators and biomedical journals. JAMA. 1998;279:1808-1812. [Abstract]
Budd JM, Sievert ME, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA. 1998;280:296-297. [Full Text]
Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:51-56. [Full Text]
Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E. Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Abstract available at http://cochranelibrary.com/. Full text available for fee at http://cochranelibrary.com/
Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS. Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001;7:205-218.
Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, et al. Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet. 1999;354:57-61. [Full Text]
Back to top
Relations with Industry/AdvertisingOpinion
Deyo RA, Psaty BM, Simon G, Wagner, Omenn GS. The messenger under attack — intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1176-1179. [Full Text]
Wager L et al. Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19:149-154. [Full Text]
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. A systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454-465. [Full Text]
Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J. Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ. 2002;325:1391-1392. [Full Text]
Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:485-489.
Wilkes MS, Doblin B, Shapiro M. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: experts' assessments. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:912-919.
Back to top
Research Design and Statistics for EditorsGeneral
Lang T. Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. CMJ. 2004;45:361-370. [Full Text]
Lee N, Millman A. ABC of medical computing: manipulating and analyzing data. BMJ. 1995;311:614-617. [Full Text]
Swinscow TDV. Statistics at Square One. 9th Ed. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 1997. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 1: presenting and summarising data. Crit Care. 2002;6:66-71. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 2: samples and populations. Crit Care. 2002;6:143-148. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 3: hypothesis testing and P values. Crit Care. 2002;6:222-225. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6:335-341. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 5: comparison of means. Crit Care. 2002;6:424-428. [Full Text]
Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 6: nonparametric methods. Crit Care. 2002;6:509-513. [Full Text]
Beller EM, Gebski V, Keech AC. Randomisation in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2002;177:565-567. [Full Text]
Brighton JK, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Specifying interventions in a clinical trial. Med J Aust. 2002;176:281-282. [Full Text]
Burgess DC, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Baseline data in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2003;179:105-107. [Full Text]
Cakir B, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Flow of participants in randomised studies. Med J Aust. 2003;178:347-349. [Full Text]
Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2004;180:289-291. [Full Text]
Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Statistical methods in clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2003;178:182-184. [Full Text]
Gebski V, Marschner I, Keech AC. Specifying objectives and outcomes for clinical trials. Med J Aust. 2002;176:491-492. [Full Text]
Hague WE, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Recruitment to randomised studies. Med J Aust. 2003;178:579-581. [Full Text]
Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust. 2003;179:438-440. [Full Text]
Keech AC, Gebski V. Managing the resource demands of a large sample size in clinical trials: can you succeed with fewer subjects? Med J Aust. 2002;177:445-447. [Full Text]
Keech AC, Wonders SM, Cook DI, Gebski VJ. Balancing the outcomes: reporting adverse events. Med J Aust. 2004;181:215-218. [Full Text]
Kirby A, Gebski V, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust. 2002;177:256-257. [Full Text]
Lord SJ, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Multiple analyses in clinical trials: sound science or data dredging? Med J Aust. 2004;181:452-454. [Full Text]
O'Connell RL, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Making sense of trial results: outcomes and estimation. Med J Aust. 2004;180:128-130. [Full Text]
Pike R, Keech AC, Simes RJ. Clinical trials research in the new millennium: the International Clinical Trials Symposium, Sydney, 21-23 October 2002. Med J Aust. 2003;178:316-317. [Full Text]
Seale JP, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Generalising the results of trials to clinical practice. Med J Aust. 2004;181:558-560. [Full Text]
Simes RJ, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Subgroup analysis: application to individual patient decisions. Med J Aust. 2004;180:467-469. [Full Text]
Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the Relative Risk?: A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280:1690-1691 [Full Text]
Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114-116. [Full Text]Back to top
Style and Format(See also Selected Books and Web Sites)
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-694.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT Statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639. (available at consort-statement.org)
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clin Chem. 2003;49:1-6. 10.1373/49.1.1 [Full Text]
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7-18. 10.1373/49.1.7 [Full Text]
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited: a progress report. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:69-76.
Kaplan JB, Bennett T. Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:2709-2716. [Full Text]
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality or reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900. [Full Text]
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-1991 (also in Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-662) (available at consort-statement.org). [Abstract]
Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:613-5.
Skelton JR, Edwards SJL. The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. BMJ. 2000;320:1269-1270. [Full Text]
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, et al, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2002-2012. [Abstract]
Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2000-2003. [Abstract]
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, for the CONSORT Group. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1996-1999. [Abstract]
Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. Reporting of ethical issues in publications of medical research. Lancet. 2002;360:1326-1328.
Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CONSORT Group. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992-1995. [Abstract]
Back to top
Journal Instructions for AuthorsInstructions to authors in the health sciences
Web site has links to instructions for authors for hundreds of different journals in the health sciences compiled by the University of Toledo's Mulford Library.
Back to top