Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine.
BACKGROUND
Two directories that contain information about serials also offer lists of thousands of journals identified as peer-reviewed. Librarians generally regard these lists as authoritative.


OBJECTIVE
To identify clinical medicine journals on both peer-reviewed lists, measure the extent of discrepancies between these two lists, and determine the cause for these discrepancies.


METHODS
Comparison study.


METHODS
The extent of the discrepancies were tallied once the author had attempted to control for all extraneous variables. Interviews with the editorial staffs of each directory in regard to procedures for compiling the directories did not produce an explanation for these discrepancies.


RESULTS
Nearly half (46%) of the 784 clinical medicine journals were unique to either one directory's list of peer-reviewed journals or the other's, indicating significant discrepancies between the two directories. Specifically, The Serials Directory listed 211 (27%) unique titles and Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory listed 150 (19%) unique titles (total unique titles = 46%). Both directories listed 423 of the same titles (54%).


CONCLUSIONS
Widespread confusion about the actual identities of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals appears to explain the discrepancies between lists in these two periodical directories.
Eldredge
J D
JD
University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Center Library, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-5686, USA. jeldredge@biblio.unm.edu
D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012107:Research Design; D012693:Serial Publications / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires