Open Access
Peer Review
Research Ethics
Competing Interests
Editorial Decision Making
Authorship/Contributorship
Medical Education
Presentation
BMJ Careers
Papers in Preparation

OPEN ACCESS

Schroter S, Tite L, Smith R. Perceptions of Open Access Publishing: Interviews with Journal Authors. BMJ 2005;330:756-9.  [Full Text]  [Full Text PDF]

Schroter S, Tite L. Open access publishing and author-pays business models: A survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. J R Soc Med 2006;99:130-7. [Full Text] [Full Text PDF]

Schroter S, Tite L., Kassem A. Financial support at the time of paper acceptance: A survey of three medical journals. Learned Publishing 2006;19(4):291-7. [Abstract]

Schroter S. Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: A survey of authors. BMJ 2006;332:394-6. [Abstract]  [Full Text PDF]

Back to top>

PEER REVIEW

Tite L, Schroter S. Why do reviewers decline to review for journals? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:9-12. [Abstract]

Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings, A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006;295:314-7. [Full Text] 

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Smith R, Carpenter J, Godlee F. Effects of training on quality of peer review: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 673-5  [Full Text PDF]  [Peer Review Training Pack]

White I, Carpenter J, Evans S, Schroter S.  Eliciting and using expert opinions about dropout bias in randomised controlled trials.  Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials 2007;4(2):125-39. [Abstract]

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?  J R Soc Med 2008:101: 507–514.  [Full Text PDF]

van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 23 - 27 [Abstract]  [Full Text]

van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999; 52(7): 625 - 629 [Abstract]

van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 234 - 237 [Full Text]

Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280(3): 231 - 233
[Full Text]

Back to top>

RESEARCH ETHICS

Schroter S, Plowman R, Hutchings A, Gonzalez A. Reporting of ethical committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics 2006;32:718-23. [Abstract] [Full Text PDF]

Pace NA, Owen M, Schroter S. What happens to papers rejected by the BMJ on ethical grounds. BMJ 2008;337:a1880. [Letter]

Back to top>

COMPETING INTERESTS

Haivas I, Schroter S, Waechter F, Smith R. Editors' declaration of their own conflicts of interest. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004; 171(5): 475-476 [Full Text]

Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith, R, Barratt H. Does the type of competing interest statement affect reader perceptions of the credibility of research? A randomised trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 742-3 [Full Text]  [Full Text PDF]

Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J. Does declaration of competing interests affect reader perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 2002; 325: 1391-2 [Full Text PDF]

Williams HC, Naldi L, Paul C, Vahlquist A, Schroter S, Jobling R.  Conflicts of Interest in Dermatology. Acta Derm Venereol. 2006;86(6):485-97. [Full Text]  [Full Text PDF]

Back to top>

EDITORIAL DECISION MAKING

Schroter S, Barratt H. Editorial decision-making based on abstracts. European Science Editing 2004; 30(1): 4-5.

Back to top>

AUTHORSHIP/CONTRIBUTORSHIP

Barratt H, Schroter S, Smith R. Two postal surveys of different methods of communicating rejection to authors submitting to a general medical journal. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2003; 10(4):289 – 99. 

Altman DG, Goodman SN, Schroter S. How statistical expertise is utilized in medical research. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2817-20 [Full Text]

Back to top>

MEDICAL EDUCATION

Sandars J, Schroter S. Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey. Postgrad Med J 2007 Dec;83(986):759-62. [Abstract]

Back to top>

PRESENTATION

Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, Liu PY, Altman DG.  From Submission to Publication: A Retrospective Review of the Tables and Figures in a Cohort of Randomized Controlled Trials Submitted to the British Medical Journal.  Ann Emerg Med 2006 Dec;48(6):750-6. [Abstract]

Müllner M, Waechter F, Schroter S, Squire B. How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors. CMAJ 2005; 172(2): 203-5 [Full Text PDF]

Barratt H, Schroter S, Smith J. Authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing: Two cross-sectional surveys. BMJ 2004; 328: 1350-3 [Abstract]  [Full Text PDF]

Back to top>

BMJ CAREERS

Dosani S, Schroter S, MacDonald R, Connor J. Recruitment of doctors to non-standard grades in the NHS: Analysis of job advertisements and survey of advertisers. BMJ 2003; 327: 961–4 [Abstract]  [Full Text PDF]

Back to top>

PAPERS IN PREPARATION

Altman DG, Ioannidis J, Moher D, Mollison J, Schriger D, Schroter S. Comparison of submitted and published reports of randomised trials. (In prep. Abstract presented at 5th Peer Review Congress, 2005).

Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C.  Quality of descriptions of interventions: A review of published randomised controlled trials.  (In prep).

Back to top>