help button home button JAMIA Bigger figures
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
First published June 4, 2003 as JAMIA PrePrint; doi:10.1197/jamia.M1062
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2003;10(5):512-514
© 2003 American Medical Informatics Association

A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Appendix 1 and Table 1
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M1062v1
10/5/512    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ammenwerth, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kulikowski, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ammenwerth, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kulikowski, C.

Submitted on November 21, 2001
Accepted on May 6, 2003

Developing and Evaluating Criteria to Help Reviewers of Biomedical Informatics Manuscripts: A Case Report

E. Ammenwerth1*, A.C. Wolff2, P. Knaup2, H. Ulmer3, S. Skonetzki2, J.H. van Bemmel4, A.T. McCray5, R. Haux6, and C. Kulikowski7

Affiliation of the authors: 1 Research Group Assessment of Health Information Systems, University for Health Informatics and Technology Tyrol (UMIT), Innsbruck, Austria; 2 Department of Medical Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany; 3 Institute for Biostatistics and Documentation, University of Innsbruck, Austria; 4 Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 5 National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD; 6 Institute for Health Information Systems, University for Health Informatics and Technology Tyrol (UMIT), Innsbruck, Austria; 7 Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Peer-reviewed publication of scientific research results represents the most important means of their communication. The authors have annually reviewed a large heterogeneous set of papers in order to produce the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Yearbook of Medical Informatics. To support an objective and high-quality review process, the authors attempted to provide reviewers with a set of refined quality criteria, comprised of 80 general criteria and an additional 60 criteria for specific types of manuscripts. Authors conducted a randomized controlled trial, with 18 reviewers, to evaluate application of the refined criteria on review outcomes. While the trial found that reviewers applying the criteria graded papers more strictly (lower overall scores), and that junior reviewers appreciated the availability of the criteria, there was no overall change in the inter-rater variability in reviewing the manuscripts. The authors describe their experience as a `case report', and provide a reference to the refined quality review criteria, without claiming that the criteria represent a validated instrument for quantitative quality measurement.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. G. Sheiman
The RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program
Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 631 - 632.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 1994 by the American Medical Informatics Association.