The promise and perils of peer review

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 118, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 795-797

  Rohrich, Rod J ^a  

^a University Hospital St Paul Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; FOLLOW UP; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 33748264372     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000233996.38247.65     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Sang-Hun, C. Cloning scientist is indicted in South Korea. The New York Times Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed May 12, 2006.
2. Altman, L. K. For science's gatekeepers, a credibility gap. The New York Times Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed May 2, 2006.
3. Bosman, J. Reporters find science journals harder to trust, but not easy to verify. The New York Times Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed February 13, 2006.
4. Wade, N. It may look authentic; here's how to tell it isn't. The New York Times Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed January 24, 2006.
5. Dobbs, D. The way we live now: 01-15-06: Idea lab; trial and error. The New York Times Available at www.nytimes.com. Accessed January 15, 2006.
6. Smith, R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J. R. Soc. Med. 99: 178, 2006.
7. Anonymous. Standards for papers on cloning. Nature 439: 243, 2006.
8. Eastwood, S., Derish, P. A., and Berger, M. S. Biomedical publication for neurosurgery residents: A program and guide. Neurosurgery 47: 739, 2000.
9. Alexander, G. R. A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Matern. Child Health J. 9: 113, 2005.
10. Giles, J. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process. Nature 439: 242, 2006.
11. Provenzale, J. M., and Stanley, R. J. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. A.J.R. Am. J. Roentgenol. 185: 848, 2005.