Peer Reviewing for the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: What Does It Take?

References

1. ↵
   Neale AV, Bowman MA. Peer review process of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. J Am Board Fam Med 2006; 19: 209–10.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
2. ↵
   International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Available from: www.icmje.org. Accessed on August 3, 2006.
3. ↵
   Neale AV, Schwartz KL, Bowman MA. Conflict of interest: can we minimize its influence in the biomedical literature? J Am Board Fam Pract 2005; 18: 411–3.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28: 81–7.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. ↵
   McCarthy LH, Reilly REH. How to write a case report. Fam Med 2000; 32: 190–5.

   OpenUrlPubMed
6. ↵
   Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract 2004; 17: 59–67.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. ↵
   Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman, DG. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 657–62.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. ↵
   Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Popock SJ, Evans SJ, CONSORT Group. Reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006; 295: 1152–60.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. ↵
   Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–900.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science