This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alfred Soffer, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1981;141(1):20.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A carefully structured report was sent to my editorial office and then transmitted to out-of-office consultants for editorial peer review. The detailed comments of the referees were submitted to the investigators; W. Y. Chen, PhD, of Denver, the distinguished senior author, responded on behalf of his colleagues with a revised manuscript and these comments, "We believe that the revised paper has been improved greatly after many of the suggestions of the referees were implemented. We hope that our readers will be as critical as our referees have been so that the quality of our studies can be continuously examined. Many thanks to you again for every effort you have made in improving this manuscript." Dr Chen's views of the process of a responsible, constructive editorial review and his reliance on a critical readership provide a number of insights into the indispensable role of peer review journals.

Clinicians are buffeted daily . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PO Box 776 Park Ridge, IL 60068

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?