Biomedical subjects

A Yankauer

Publications and source records attributed to A Yankauer.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1991

What makes infant mortality rates fall in developing countries?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Child, Preschool↗

PubMed1991

Epidemic diarrhea of the newborn, a nosocomial problem in developing countries.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Cross Infection↗

PubMed1991

How blind is blind review?

BACKGROUND: No representative surveys of scientific opinion about blind review have been published, and there is very little information on the success of the blinding process. The American Journal of Public Health has practiced blind review since 1977. METHODS: In 1989 to 1990 312 of its reviewers were asked to identify author and institution in the manuscript they reviewed, to provide clues to such identification, to express their opinion concerning blind review, and to offer reasons for their opinion. RESULTS: Reviewers claimed to be able to identify author and/or institution in 47% of the 614 chances offered; identification was incorrect 16% of the time, overall identification correct 39% of the time. Self-referencing was the clue to identification in 62%, personal knowledge in 38% of the cases. If only personal knowledge cases are considered, blinding was successful 83% of the time. Blinding was favored by 75% of the reviewers with most asserting it eliminated bias. Reasons given for opposing blind review included the following: blinding not possible, identification will not influence judgment, and its obverse, identification assists judgment. CONCLUSIONS: For the American Journal of Public Health blinding is usually, but not always, successful; and the majority of its reviewers favor current policy. Until more definitive data are in, reviewer preference, which differs from journal to journal, seems the most legitimate guide to journal policy on blind review.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed1990

Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?

To assess the nature and work load of reviewers for the American Journal of Public Health, I surveyed a sample of 276 reviewers in the latter half of 1988, with a 96% response rate. Respondents reported reviewing papers for 274 other journals in 1987, 81% of which were monitored by the Science Citation Index or the Social Science Citation Index. They reviewed most often for The Journal of the American Medical Association (27%), the American Journal of Epidemiology (26%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (23%). The median number of journals for which they reviewed was 3.6, the median of their estimated review time was 2.7 hours, and the weighted average review time (adjusted for number of reviews) was 2.4 hours. The range of review time was broad and inversely related to the number of papers reviewed. Respondents donated an estimated 3360 hours of uncompensated labor to the American Journal of Public Health in 1987, and a total of 6439 hours (26.8 hours per reviewer) to reviewing for all journals. Of the reviewers for the American Journal of Public Health, only 31% were not listed as an author of a source publication in the 1987 Science Citation Index and only 15% were not cited.

Peer Review↗

PubMed1990