Recenzija naučnog rada

Napisati, objaviti, prezentovati i vrednovati
naučno delo
Recenzija naučnog rada
Jelena Marinković
Institut za medicinsku statistiku i informatiku
novembar, 2011. godina
Recenzija u cilju publikovanja
naučnog rada – sadržaj predavanja
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
Kako autor vidi svoj rad?
Kakvi su trendovi?
Kakva su pravila / vodiči?
Recenzija i recenzenti
A kakve su činjenice – nekoliko
primera?
Autor(i): Od ideje ...
preko diskusije, ...
Merenja, prikupljanja
podataka, i
njihove obrade
(eksploracije i analize),
do pisanja rada ...
Koraci u pisanju rada
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
Napravi plan samog rada.
Skiciraj rad.
Uključi “podatke”.
Napiši prvu verziju.
Obogati prvu verziju.
Revidiraj!
Da li je dovoljno?
Revizija
Revizija
Okamov brijač u pisanju
Princip naučne štedljivosti - važan princip u logičnom i
naučnom razmišljanju. Broj aksioma ili pretpostavki
neophodnih da se ustanovi istina ili objasni neki fenomen
treba da je što manji (Vilijam od Okama).
l Dobar pasus nema suvišnih rečenica.
l Dobra rečenica nema suvišnih reči.
l Dobri radovi zahtevaju više tabela i ilustracija
a manje reči.
l Svaka referenca treba da ima razumnu svrhu.
Da li je dovoljno?
WC Roberts
Am J Cardiol, 1986
Kako autor, urednik i
recenzent čitaju rad?
A
E
R
E
R
E
E
E
A
Od ideje do ... ?
Prihvatanja
Dragi ... sa
zadovoljstvom
Vas
obaveštavamo
da prihvatamo
Vaš rad za
objavljivanje u...
Odbacivanja
Dragi ... sa
žaljenjem Vas
obaveštavamo
da ne
prihvatamo Vaš
rad za
objavljivanje u...
Recenzija u cilju publikovanja naučnog
rada – očekuje se:
l  Da je pripremljen u skladu sa uputstvom
za pripremu rukopisa za odgovarajući
časopis!
l  Da je zanimljiv i adekvatno metodološki
urađen i napisan za dati časopis!
Najopštije odluka o prihvatanju rada
za publikovanje zavisi od:
1.  Da li su autori izabrali važan problem?
2.  Da li rad pomera granice našeg znanja o
predmetu?
3.  Da li je rad metodološki udobro urađen?
4.  Da li će ovo istraživanje verovatno potaknuti
dodatna istraživanja?
5.  Da li će istraživanje pomoći proces
donošenja odluka?
6.  Sve u svemu, da li je rad vredan
publikovanja?
Odluka recenzenta
l Rad se ne prihvata za publikovanje
l Rad se mora korigovati po zahtevima
recenzenta ako je to po mišljenju autora
moguće i opravdano i ponovo poslati
recezentu na razmatranje (manja i veća
revizija)
l Rad se prihvata bez izmena za publikovanje
Korekcije na zahtev recenzenta
¡ Moraju biti prezentovane u samom radu i
¡ Moraju detaljno biti objašnjene u pratećem
pismu
Recenzija u cilju publikovanja
naučnog rada
2.  Kakvi su trendovi?
3.  Kakva su pravila / vodiči?
4.  Kako čitati i recenzirati naučni i stručni
članak?
2. Kakvi su trendovi?
l Pre skoro 15 godina kada je Frank Davidoff,
FACP, postao glavni i odgovorni urednik Annals of
Internal Medicine,
¡ medicina zasnovana na dokazima bio je potpuno
nov koncept za mnoge lekare,
¡ Internet publikovanje futuristički scenario a
¡ pitanje opstanka opštih medicinskih časopisa
visokog kvaliteta upitno zbog visoko specijalizovane
podele rada u okviru sistema zdravstvene zaštite.
l Pitanje: Kako se promenio sadržaj Anala od 1995.
godine?
l Odgovor FD:
¡ Medicina zasnovana na dokazima bila je tada tek u povoju.
Danas je standardni dokaz — dakle ono što se smatra
adekvatnim dokazom — mnogo rigoroznije.
¡ Za uređivanje časopisa ovo znači da su se naši standardi o
tome šta smatramo interesantnim i prihvatljivim promenilo. A
ova činjenica je sa svoje strane uvećala važnost statističke
recenzije. Našu reputaciju smo realizovali zato što naši
statističari — tri glavna i sedam pomoćnih — pažljivo
pregleda svaki rad jednom kada smatramo da je problem
zanimljiv. Autori tih radova moraju uzeti u obzir sve njihove
komentare.
Vodiči dobre statističke prakse
l Naučni metod = Statistički metod
statističke metode)
l Statistika kao naučni jezik
¡ semantika: gde (na kojim mestima u radu), šta,
zašto, značenje i interpretacija
¡ sintaksa: u kom obliku
(≠
3. Kakva su pravila / vodiči ?
l  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals (International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors)
l  CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)
l  QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses)
l  MOOSE (Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in
Epidemiology)
l  STROBE (The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology)
l  STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy)
l  TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with
Nonrandomized Designs) …
UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO
BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).
Dostupno na http://www.icmje.org/
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials): a 22-item checklist for
reporting simple two group, parallel, randomized controlled trials (Moher, Schulz,
& Altman, 2001). Dostupno na
MS Word format ] http://www.consortstatement.org/Downloads/Checklist.doc ili
[ PDF format ] http://www.consort-statement.org
/Downloads/checklist.pdf.
QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses): a 17-item checklist for
reporting systematic reviews (Moher et al., 1999). Dostupno na
http://www.consort-statement.org/QUOROM.pdf. QUOROM je dostupan samo
u .pdf formatu.
MOOSE (Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology): a 35-item
checklist for reporting observational studies (Stroup et al., 2000). Dostupno na
http://www.greenjournal.org/misc/moose.pdf ili
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/283/15/2008.
STROBE (The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in
Epidemiology). Dostupno na http://www.strobe-statement.org/
TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs):
a 22-item checklist for nonrandomized designs (2004). Dostupno na
http://www.trend-statement.org/asp/documents/statements/AJPH_
Mar2004_Trendstatement.pdf. TREND je dostupan samo u .pdf formatu.
STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy): a 25-item checklist
for diagnostic test accuracy (STARD, 2001). Dostupno na
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/7.pdf ili
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/49/1/7/.
4. Recenzija i recenzenti
l Recenzija (peer review) je proces u kome se naučni
rad, projekat, ideja pregledaju i procenjuju od strane
stručnjaka u istoj oblasti, bez materijalne naknade.
l Procena se po pravilu odnosi na: značaj,
originalnost, prezentaciju, valjanost, etičke aspekte i
druge karakteristike studije.
l Fundamentalni korak u biomedicinskom
publikovanju.
l Sistem recenzija institucionalizovan je u potpunosti
od 40-tih godina prošlog veka.
Recenzija – malo istorije
l Praksa slična procesu recenzije - Ethics of the
Physician autora Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi (854–931) iz
Al-Rahe, Sirija.
l Prvi zabeleženi proces recenzije – Kraljevsko
društvo 1665 od strane urednika Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society Henrija
Oldenburga.
l U skladu sa prihvaćenom definicijom - Medical
Essays and Observations koje je 1731.g. štampalo
Edinburško Kraljevsko društvo.
Recenzija – zašto recenzenti?
l “Četiri oka više vide nego dva”.
l Odluka (da li publikovati ili ne, šta menjati) je
uvek na glavnom uredniku / uređivačkom
odboru časopisa.
l Urednici se oslanjaju na recenzente zbog:
¡ Količine posla.
¡ Različitosti mišljenja.
¡ Ograničene ekspertize.
Recenzija – ključna pitanja o recenzentima
l Koliko recenzenata?
l Ko su recenzenti: “Anonimni” i nezavisni
l Otvorena ili zatvorena? (i autori i recenzenti)
l Vreme potrebno za recenziju (online)
Recenzija – procedura
l  Urednik šalje kopije dostavljenog rada recenzentima (2-3) epoštom ili preko web-zasnovanog sistema za procesovanje
rukopisa (web-based manuscript processing system).
l  Recenzenti vraćaju evaluirani naučni rad uredniku
naglašavajući slabosti, probleme i sugestije za unapređenje
rada. Skoro uvek uključuje i eksplicitne preporuke:
bezuslovno prihvatanje, uslovno prihvatanje ako ga autori
rada unaprede na određeni način, odbacivanje ali sa
ohrabrivanjem revizije rada i ponovnog slanja i bezuslovno
odbacivanje.
l  Urednik evaluira komentare recenzenata, uključuje sopstveno
mišljenje o radu, kontekst časopisa, i šalje odluku autorima po
pravilu sa komentarima recenzenata.
Recenzija – procedura (2)
l Da li je urednik obavezan da prihvati mišljenje
recenzenata?
l Nesaglasnost recenzenata?
¡ treći recenzent
¡ odgovor autora na negativnu recenziju uredniku
¡ odgovor autora na negativnu recenziju recenzentu
ali bez uključivanja drugog recenzenta
Recenzija – procedura (3)
l “Open access model” – na Internetu je čitava
istorija naučnog rada.
l Tradicionalno recenzenti su anonoimni.
l Promena ovog standarda – opcija
recenzentima da potpišu svoju recenziju
(Zahvalnost anonimnim ili imenovanim
recenzentima na kraju rada).
Recenzenti
l Kako se postaje recenzent?
l Sukob interesa.
l Autori predlažu recenzente.
l Autori saopštavaju ko recenzent ne može da
bude.
l Anonimni ili ne?
l Demografske karakteristike recenzenata.
l “Veliki” i “mali” časopisi.
Recenzenti (2)
l Evaluacije recenzenata – Journal Clubs i
pisma uredništvu.
l Da li je recenzija odlika valjanosti ili samo
prihvatljivosti rada?
l A autori, njihove kritike rada recenzenata?
¡ Vreme, vreme, ... (od nekoliko nedelja do nekoliko
godina)
¡ Šta je prihvatljivo u oblasti a šta ne?
Recenzenti (3)
l Kako se menja praksa?
¡ dobri časopisi traže originalne podatke
¡ dvostepeni proces recenzije
¡ open peer review (od 90-tih, Nature 2006)
¡ ekstenzija – posle publikovanja koncept Open Peer
Commentary
5. A kakve su činjenice – nekoliko
primera?
SVE ZAVISI OD
ČASOPISA
U KOJI SE ŠALJE
RAD
Agenda jednog recenzenta u 2010.g.:
Journal
l  JACC
l  AJC
l  AJC
l  AJC
l  Circulation
l  Cardiologia
l  GIC
l  Circulation
l  Cardiologia
l  JACC
l  AHJ
l  AJC
l  AJC
l  JACC
l  AJC
l  ASE
l  Pediatric Res
Month
Feb
Feb
March
March
March
Apr
Apr
Apr
Apr
June
July
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Dec
Dec
Suggestion
REJECT
Major Revision
ACCEPT
REJECT
REJECT
REJECT
ACCEPT
REJECT
REJECT
REJECT
Major Revision
ACCEPT
ACCEPT
REJECT
ACCEPT
ACCEPT
ACCEPT
Editorial Decision
REJECT
REJECT
ACCEPT
REJECT
REJECT
REJECT
ACCEPT
REJECT
ACCEPT
REJECT
REJECT
ACCEPT
REJECT
REJECT
ACCEPT
ACCEPT
ACCEPT
Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?
Archives of Medical Research, 2003, Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 439-443
Methods
We analyzed 1,346 editorial requests for manuscript peer review sent from the Croatian Medical Journal to 690
reviewers from February 1998 to December 2001.
Results
Peer reviewer response rate was 78.6% (1,057 of 1,346 requests for review) and median review time
was 29 days (95% confidence interval [95% CI]=28–31 days). Of returned reviews, 554
(52.4%) arrived on time (before the deadline established by the editor) and the others arrived late. Median delay
was 12 days (95% CI=10–15 days). There was no difference in delay for Croatian- and non-Croatian-authored
manuscripts, but more reviews of articles on clinical medicine were delayed than those
on public health. More reviews from non-Croatian or male reviewers were never returned to the editors.
For reviews that arrived late, those from male reviewers were more delayed than
those from female reviewers (median, 13 days, 95% CI=11–15 days vs. median, 8 days, 95% CI=5–
12 days, respectively). Logistic regression analysis revealed that odds for reviewer's positive response to an
editorial request for manuscript review were greater for female Croatian reviewers, who received up to three
review requests.
Conclusions
Peer review time in a small general medical journal may be comparable to review times in larger and more
prestigious journals. Choice of reviewers may improve the expediency of peer review: editors from small journals
may profit from building and educating local peer reviewers, bearing in mind that female reviewers may provide
more expedient reviews.
An Evaluation of Time to Publication for Randomized Trials Submitted to the BMJ
Sara Schroter, Douglas G. Altman, and John P. A. Ioannidis
Objective To
evaluate the publication rate of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
submitted to the BMJ and to understand how many and which trials remain
unpublished a long time after submission.
Design We evaluated all 660 reports of RCTs submitted to the BMJ between January 1, 1998, and December 31,
2001. We identified the published articles or, if we could not locate any published reports, we contacted the authors.
Results We found that 602 of 660 RCTs (91%) were published: 150 (23%) in the BMJ and 452 (68%) in other
journals. All except 6 of the trials published elsewhere were in journals with lower impact factor than BMJ (median,
2.13; interquartile range [IQR], 1.53-3.03). The median time from submission to publication was
1.36 years (IQR, 0.89-2.15; and 1.30, IQR, 0.87-1.91, excluding the 40 unpublished trials). About 25% of
the RCTs submitted to the BMJ remained unpublished for 2 or more years after
submission. Excluding the BMJ-published papers, a higher impact factor was associated with more rapid
publication (HR, 1.08 per point, P = .002). Unpublished trials were significantly less likely to go to external review,
have external reviews returned, and reach the BMJ editorial "hanging" committee than published trials but were not
significantly different in their country of origin. Conclusions Results of all RCTs should be publicly
available since they are level I evidence. The large majority of the trial reports
submitted to the BMJ get published in time, but about 25% remained unpublished
after 2 years. Among those remaining unpublished, negative results are not
perceived as a prime reason for failure to publish.
Editors “play dice” with the paper?
In a sample of 100 papers sent out for review
each one to 2 reviewers, the same evaluation was
given only in 27 cases, and in 8 cases the
assessment was totally split: reject outright for 1
reviewer and accepted outright for the other.
Robert and Suzanne Fletcher Editors
Ann Int Med, 1993
Copyright ili pravo na kopiranje?
…The present meeting stems from the
same philosophy: a more
sophisticated..
…This supplements, stems from the
same philosophy: a more
efficacious…
There was no ambition of
completeness, exhaustivity, or even
balance in choosing topics to discuss.
Rather, special attention was devoted
to the most elusive aspects … and the
most innovative diagnostic approaches
There was no ambition of
completeness exhaustivity, or even
balance in choosing topics to discuss.
Rather, special attention was devoted
to the most elusive or controversial
issues … and the most innovative
therapeutic approaches
…The contributions of the participants,
both old and new friends who promptly
joined in this fourth venture...
…The efforts of participants, both old
and new friends who promptly joined
in this venture...
Circulation 1991; 83(5):III-I
Am Heart J 1999; 138:S47
What Makes a Good Reviewer and a Good Review for a General Medical Journal?
(JAMA. 1998;280:231-233)
Nick Black, MD; Susan van Rooyen, BSc; Fiona Godlee, MRCP; Richard Smith, FRCP;
Stephen Evans, MSc
Context.—Selecting peer reviewers who will provide high-quality reviews is a central task of editors of biomedical
journals.
Objectives.—To determine the characteristics of reviewers for a general medical journal
who produce high-quality reviews and to describe the characteristics of a good
review, particularly in terms of the time spent reviewing and turnaround time.
Design, Setting, and Participants.—Surveys of reviewers of the 420 manuscripts submitted to BMJ between January
and June 1997.
Main Outcome Measures.—Review quality was assessed independently by 2 editors and by the corresponding
author using a newly developed 7-item review quality instrument.
Results.—Of the 420 manuscripts, 345 (82%) had 2 reviews completed, for a total of 690 reviews. Authors'
assessments of review quality were available for 507 reviews. The characteristics of reviewers had little association
with the quality of the reviews they produced (explaining only 8% of the variation), regardless of whether editors or
authors defined the quality of the review. In a logistic regression analysis, the only significant factor
associated with higher-quality ratings by both editors and authors was reviewers
trained in epidemiology or statistics. Younger age also was an independent predictor
for editors' quality assessments, while reviews performed by reviewers who were
members of an editorial board were rated of poorer quality by authors. Review
quality increased with time spent on a review, up to 3 hours but not beyond.
Conclusions.—The characteristics of reviewers we studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews.
Reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase
review quality as rated by editors and authors.
US and Non-US Submissions
An Analysis of Reviewer Bias
(JAMA. 1998;280:246-247)
Ann M. Link, MA
Context.—Reviewers increasingly are asked to review manuscripts from outside their own country, but whether
they are more likely to recommend acceptance of such manuscripts is not known.
Objective.—To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate
manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted
from outside the United States or from the United States.
Design and Setting.—A retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995
and 1996. Reviewers ranked manuscripts in 4 decision categories: accept, provisionally accept, reject with
resubmission, or reject.
Main Outcome Measure.—Ranking of papers based on nationality of authors and reviewers.
Results.—The percentage of non-US manuscripts placed in each decision category by US (n=2355) and nonUS reviewers (n=1297) was nearly identical (P=.31). However, US reviewers recommended acceptance of
papers submitted by US authors more often than did non-US reviewers (P=.001). Non-US reviewers ranked US
papers slightly more favorably than non-US papers (P=.09), while US reviewers ranked US papers much more
favorably (P=.001).
Conclusions.—Reviewers from the United States and outside the United States
evaluate non-US papers similarly and evaluate papers submitted by US authors
more favorably, with US reviewers having a significant preference for US papers.
Changes to Manuscripts During the Editorial Process - Characterizing the
Evolution of a Clinical Paper
(JAMA. 1998;280:227-228)
Gretchen P. Purcell, MD, PhD; Shannon L. Donovan, MA; Frank Davidoff, MD
Context.—Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial
revision processes.
Objective.—To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes
made to address these problems.
Design and Setting.—Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of
Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis
of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and
November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published
January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997).
Main Outcome Measure.—Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and
revision.
Results.—Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much
information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information,
and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was
missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by
the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions).
Conclusion.—The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer
review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties.
Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
A Randomized Trial
(JAMA. 1998;280:234-237)
Susan van Rooyen, BSc; Fiona Godlee, MRCP; Stephen Evans, MSc; Richard Smith,
FRCP; Nick Black, MD
Context.—Little research has been conducted into the quality of peer review and, in particular, the effects of
blinding peer reviewers to authors' identities or masking peer reviewers' identities.
Objective.—To determine whether concealing authors' identities from reviewers (blinding) and/or revealing the
reviewer's identity to a coreviewer (unmasking) affects the quality of reviews, the time taken to carry out reviews,
and the recommendation regarding publication.
Design and Setting.—Randomized trial of 527 consecutive manuscripts submitted to BMJ, which were
randomized and each sent to 2 peer reviewers.
Interventions.—Manuscripts were randomized as to whether the reviewers were unmasked, masked, or
uninformed that a study was taking place. Two reviewers for each manuscript were randomized to receive either a
blinded or an unblinded version.
Main Outcome Measures.—Mean total quality score, time taken to carry out the review, and recommendation
regarding publication.
Results.—Of the 527 manuscripts entered into the study, 467 (89%) were successfully randomized and followed
up. The mean total quality score was 2.87. There was little or no difference in review quality between the masked
and unmasked groups (scores of 2.82 and 2.96, respectively) and between the blinded and unblinded groups
(scores of 2.87 and 2.90, respectively). There was no apparent Hawthorne effect. There was also no significant
difference between groups in the recommendations regarding publication or time taken to review.
Conclusions.—Blinding and unmasking made no editorially significant difference to
review quality, reviewers' recommendations, or time taken to review. Other
considerations should guide decisions as to the form of peer review adopted by a
journal, and improvements in the quality of peer review should be sought via other
means.
Predictors of Time to Publication of Manuscripts Rejected by Major Biomedical
Journals
Kirby Lee,1 Nicholas Lehman,2 I'Alla Brodie,3 and Lisa Bero1
Objective To evaluate publication rates and predictors of time to publication for manuscripts rejected by major
biomedical journals.
Design Cohort study of 1008 manuscripts reporting original research submitted for publication and subsequently
rejected at 3 major biomedical journals (BMJ, Lancet, and Annals of Internal Medicine) during 2003-2004. Our main
predictor of publication was statistical significance of results (P < .05) reported for the primary outcome. We also
abstracted manuscript characteristics including study design, sample size, funding source, and whether the
manuscript was outright rejected vs rejected after external peer review. The primary outcome of our study was
subsequent publication of the rejected manuscripts. We determined publication status and time from rejection to
publication in the medical literature by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index for Nursing
and Allied Health Literature through June 30, 2008 (minimum follow-up time of 4.3 years). Predictors of time to
publication were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions. All analyses were planned a
priori.
Results Seventy-six percent (767) of manuscripts were published (median, 1.25 years, range, 0.01-5.32
years). The majority of manuscripts were published in specialty journals (85%, 654/767) with lower impact factors
than the original rejecting journal. Manuscripts were more likely to be published if they had larger sample sizes and
less likely if they did not disclose a funding source or did not report results using statistical tests for comparisons,
particularly after 1.25 years from initial rejection.
Conclusions A quarter of manuscripts initially rejected by major biomedical journals
remained unpublished. Although some methodological characteristics and
disclosing the funding source were associated with publication, articles with
statistically significant results were not more likely to be published.
Publication of Research Reports After Rejection by the New England Journal of
Medicine in 2 Time Periods
Michael Bretthauer, Pam Miller, Edward W. Campion, and Jeff Drazen
Objective In the past 2 decades, the number of peer-reviewed medical journals that publish original research reports
has increased. We compared the subsequent publication of original research manuscripts after rejection at a major
general medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, with an acceptance rate of less than 10%. Data were
obtained for both 1995 and 2003.
Design All original research manuscripts rejected after external peer review at the index journal during the calendar
years 1995 and 2003 were identified from our electronic databases. All manuscripts were tracked for subsequent
publication in a medical or scientific journal by searching for similar titles and authors in PubMed. Searches were
performed between November 25, 2008, and January 30, 2009, for the 1995 manuscripts. For the 2003 manuscripts,
searches were completed in the first week of February 2009. Descriptive statistics were computed by the use of SPSS
15.0.
Results Of 1423 manuscripts rejected in 1995, we identified 1273 that were subsequently published (89.5%), as
compared to 1040 of 1205 (86.3%) for those in 2003. The manuscripts were published in 384 different journals in
1995, as compared to 319 in 2003. The median time from rejection by the index journal to eventual publication in
another journal was 437 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 313-652 days) in 1995 vs 398 days (IQR: 286-564 days) in
2003. Table 7 shows the 5 types of journals that published the papers after rejection at the index journal for the 2 time
periods.
Conclusions The vast majority of research manuscripts that are rejected by a general
medical journal after peer review are published elsewhere. However, there is
substantial delay in this process. The time from rejection at the index journal to
publication elsewhere declined only slightly from 1995 to 2003.
Odluka recenzenta
l Rad se ne prihvata za publikovanje
l Rad se mora korigovati po zahtevima
recenzenta ako je to po mišljenju autora
moguće i opravdano i ponovo poslati
recezentu na razmatranje (manja i veća
revizija)
l Rad se prihvata bez izmena za publikovanje
Korekcije na zahtev recenzenta
¡ Moraju biti prezentovane u samom radu
¡ Moraju detaljno biti objašnjene u pratećem
pismu
Literatura
l  1. Različita uputstva, vodiči
l  2. Evaluacija medicinske literature U: Marinković J, Dotlić R,
Janošević S i sar.: Statistika za istraživače u oblasti
medicinskih nauka, Medicinski fakultet, Beograd, 2001.
l  3. Pyrczak F. Evaluating Research in Academics Journals. A
Practical Guide to Realistic Evaluation. Second Edition.
Pyrczak Publishing, Los Angeles, 2003. pp 141-14