This is an open access book. The book provides an overview of the state of research in developing countries – Africa, Latin America, and Asia (especially India) and why research and publications are important in these regions. It addresses budding but struggling academics in low and middle-income countries. It is written mainly by senior colleagues who have experienced and recognized the challenges with design, documentation, and publication of health research in the developing world. The book includes short chapters providing insight into planning research at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, issues related to research ethics, and conduct of clinical trials. It also serves as a guide towards establishing a research question and research methodology. It covers important concepts such as writing a paper, the submission process, dealing with rejection and revisions, and covers additional topics such as planning lectures and presentations. The book will be useful for graduates, postgraduates, teachers as well as physicians and practitioners all over the developing world who are interested in academic medicine and wish to do medical research.

This book has established itself as the authoritative text on health sciences peer review. Contributions from the world's leading figures discuss the state of peer review, question its role in the currently changing world of electronic journal publishing, and debate where it should go from here. The second edition has been thoroughly revised and new chapters added on qualitative peer review, training, consumers and innovation.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

The medical research landscape in the United States is supported by a variety of organizations that spend billions of dollars in government and private funds each year to seek answers to complex medical and public health problems. The largest government funder is the National Institutes of Health (NIH), followed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Almost half of DoD's medical research funding is administered by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP). The mission of CDMRP is to foster innovative approaches to medical research in response to the needs of its stakeholdersâ€"the U.S. military, their families, the American public, and Congress. CDMRP funds medical research to be performed by other government and nongovernmental organizations, but it does not conduct research itself. The major focus of CDMRP funded research is the improved prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases, injuries, or conditions that affect service members and their families, and the general public. The hallmarks of CDMRP include reviewing applications for research funding using a two-tiered review process, and involving consumers throughout the process. Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process evaluates the CDMRP two-tiered peer review process, its coordination of research priorities with NIH and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and provides recommendations on how the process for reviewing and selecting studies can be improved.

This book is the first to provide an in-depth analysis of the peer review process in scholarly publishing. Author Weller offers a systematic review of published studies of editorial peer review in the following broad categories: general studies of rejection rates, studies of editors, studies of authors, and studies of reviewers. The book concludes with an examination of new models of editorial peer review intended to enhance the scientific communication process as it moves from a print to an electronic environment.

How to Survive Peer Review is a practical handbook designed to help anybody who wants to get their work published in a scientific journal, wants to apply for research funds or who has to undergo formal appraisals at work. It will also help people who have been asked to review articles, abstracts or grant applications. These activities are an essential part of scientific life, yet they virtually never get covered in professional training. It is often difficult even to get any helpful information about the processes from journals, meetings or funders. For the first time, this book brings together all you need to know, with authoritative advice from three authors who have researched peer review extensively and have considerable practical experience as researchers, editors and reviewers.

Peer review is the process by which submissions to journals and presses are evaluated with regard to suitability for publication. Armed with the results of numerous empirical studies, critics have leveled a variety of harsh charges against peer review such as: reviewers and editors are biased toward authors from prestigious institutions, peer review is biased toward established ideas, and it does a poor job of detecting errors and fraud. While an immense literature has sprouted on peer review in the sciences and social sciences, Peer Review is the first book-length, wide-ranging study of peer review that utilizes methods and resources of contemporary philosophy. Its six chapters cover the following topics: the tension between peer review and the liberal notion that truth emerges when ideas proliferate in the marketplace of ideas; arguments for and against blind review of submissions; the alleged conservatism of peer review; the anomalous nature of book reviewing; the status of non-peer-reviewed publications, such as invited articles or Internet publications, in tenure and promotion cases; and the future of peer review in the age of the Internet. The author has also included several key readings about peer review.

This comprehensive yet concise book provides a thorough and complete guide to every aspect of managing the peer review process for scientific journals. Until now, little information has been readily available on how this important facet of the journal publishing process should be conducted properly. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals fills this gap and provides clear guidance on all aspects of peer review, from manuscript submission to final decision. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals is an essential reference for science journal editors, editorial office staff and publishers. It is an invaluable handbook for the set-up of new Editorial Offices, as well as a useful reference for well-established journals which may need guidance on a particular situation, or may want to review their current practices. Although intended primarily for journals in science, much of its content will be relevant to other scholarly areas. ? ?This wonderful work by Dr. Hames can be used as a textbook in courses for both experienced and novice editors, and I trust that it is what Dr. Hames intended when she prepared this beautiful book. Every scientific editor should read it.? Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professionals, 2008 ? This book is co-published with the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) (www.alpsp.org) ALPSP members are entitled to a 30% discount on this book.

Peer Review in Nursing: Principles for a Successful Practice is the first nursing publication that approaches the definition and implementation strategies for peer review within an organizational setting. Using a professional model, with shared governance as a framework, the authors discuss the difference between manger initiated staff performance evaluation of the past and the true peer review aspects of professional practice for the future. This text follows in line with the Magnet program requiremet “that nurses at all levels use self appraisal performance review and peer review, including annual goal settings, for the assurance of competence and professional development” page 30 of the 2008 Magnet manual. This unique text teaches nurses the skills they need to demonstrate organizational processes, structures, and outcomes that help insure accountability, competence and autonomy.

This book examines how dominant interest groups manipulate the available science to support their positions.