Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals

Learned Publishing

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 257-263

  Wager, Elizabeth ^a,c   Jefferson, Tom ^b  

^a Sideview ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^c Sideview Cottage   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009430298     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315101753141356     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. ALPSP/EASE Peer Review Survey. www.alpsp.org/peerev.pdf (12 Mar. 2001).
2. Jefferson, T., Wager, E. and Davidoff, F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Accepted for presentation at: 4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Barcelona, Sep. 2001.
3. Lock, S. The grossest failures of peer review. BMJ 1993:307, 382.
4. Godlee, E, Gale, C.R. and Martyn, C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998:280, 237-40.
5. Peters, D.P. and Ceci, S.J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982:5, 187-95.
6. Lock, S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: BMJ, 1991.
7. Nylenna, M., Riis, P and Karlsson, Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994:272, 149-51.
8. Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 1997. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
9. Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 1998. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.
10. Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 1999. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.
11. Rennie, D. Misconduct and peer review. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (eds), Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999, 90-9.
12. Goodman, S.N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S.W. and Fletcher, R.H. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 1994:121, 11-21.
13. Roberts, J.C., Fletchcr, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annnls of Internal Medicine. JAMA 1994:272, 119-21.
14. Moher, D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1998:279, 1489-91.
15. Pitkin, R., Branagan, M.A. and Burmeister, L.F. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999:281, 1110-11.
16. Wager, E. and Middleton, P. Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed journals: a systematic review. Accepted for presentation at 4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Barcelona, Sep. 2001.
17. Fletcher, R.H. and Fletcher, S.W. The effectiveness of editorial peer review. In F. Godlee and T. Jefferson (eds), Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999, 45-56.
18. Donovan, B. The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing 1998:11, 179-84.
19. Ray, J., Berkwits, M. and Davidoff, F. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. American Journal of Medicine 2000:109, 131-5.
20. Douglas-Wilson, I. Editorial review: peerless pronouncements. NEJM 1977:296, 877.
21. Alderson, P.A., Davidoff, F., Jefferson, T., Middleton, P. and Wager, E. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Accepted for presentation at 4th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Barcelona, Sep. 2001.