This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Systematic Review

Elizabeth Wager, MA; Philippa Middleton, MPH

JAMA. 2002;287:2821-2824.

Context  Technical editing supposedly improves the accuracy and clarity of journal articles. We examined evidence of its effects on research reports in biomedical journals.

Methods  Subset of a systematic review using Cochrane methods, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases from earliest entries to February 2000 by using inclusive search terms; hand searching relevant journals. We selected comparative studies of the effects of editorial processes on original research articles between acceptance and publication in biomedical journals. Two reviewers assessed each study and performed independent data extraction.

Results  The 11 studies on technical editing indicate that it improves the readability of articles slightly (as measured by Gunning Fog and Flesch reading ease scores), may improve other aspects of their quality, can increase the accuracy of references and quotations, and raises the quality of abstracts. Supplying authors with abstract preparation instructions had no discernible effect.

Conclusions  Considering the time and resources devoted to technical editing, remarkably little is known about its effects or the effects of imposing different house styles. Studies performed at 3 journals employing relatively large numbers of professional technical editors suggest that their editorial processes are associated with increases in readability and quality of articles, but these findings may not be generalizable to other journals.

Author Affiliations: Sideview, Buckinghamshire, England (Ms Wager); Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Intervention Procedures-Surgical, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, Australia (Ms Middleton).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Navigated Total Knee Replacement. A Meta-Analysis
Bauwens et al.
JBJS 2007;89:261-269.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Goodbye ghostwriters!: how to work ethically and efficiently with professional medical writers.
Woolley
Chest 2006;130:921-923.
FULL TEXT  

Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Rosen et al.
Med Decis Making 2005;25:424-428.
ABSTRACT  

Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections
Emmelin and Wall
Scand J Public Health 2003;31:161-168.
 

Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT