A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research

Biology and Medicine

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Kumar, Malhar ^a  

^a Hosmat   (India)

Author keywords

Peer review; Research misconduct; Reviewer bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861780614     PISSN: None     EISSN: 09748369     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (139)

1. Abbey M, Massey MD, Galandiuk S, Polk HC, 1994. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 105-7.
2. Aalbers MB, 2004. Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-Anglo-American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36(3): 319 -322.
3. Amabile TM, 1983. Brilliant but cruel: perception of negative evaluators, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 146 -156.
4. Angell M, 1986. Publish or perish: a proposal. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104(2): 261 - 2.
5. Anonymous, 2009. What are journals for? (editorial). Journal of Biology, Biomed Central, available at http://jbiol.com/content/8/1/1
6. Armstrong AW, Idriss SZZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD, 2008. Fate of manuscripts declined by the American Academy of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 58(4): 632-5.
7. Armstrong JS, 1997. Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 63-84.
8. Ashforth BE, 2008. Becoming vanilla pudding: how we undermine our passion for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 400-403.
9. Badeian A, 2003. The manuscript review process: the proper roles of authors, referees and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12: 331-338.
10. Baker D, 2002. The peer review process in science education journals. Research in Science Education, 32: 171 -180.
11. Barber B, 1961. Resistance by Scientists to Scientific Discovery. Science, 134 (3479): 596-602.
12. Bartels JM, Glass LA, Kreiner DS, Ryan JJ, 2009. The pursuit of publication: Authors' perceptions of and responses to peer review. North American Journal of Psychology, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6894/is_1_11/ai _n31564632/?tag=content;col1
13. Bégaud B, Verdoux H, 2001. Did the US boycott of French products spread to include scientific output? British Medical Journal, 329: 1430-1431.
14. Benfield JR, 2007. Cardiothoracic surgeons divided by a common language. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 84: 363 - 64.
15. Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE, 2003. How to review a paper, Advances in Physiology Education, 27: 47 - 52.
16. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves M et al, 2007. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31: 145-52.
17. Berger E, 2006. Peer review: A castle built in sand or the bed rock of scientific publishing? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 47(2): 157 -9.
18. Bingham C, van der Weyden MB, 1998. Peer review on the internet: Launching the eMJA peer review study 2. Medical Journal of Australia, 169: 240-41.
19. Black N, von Rooyen S, F Godlee, Smith R, Evans S, 1998. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 231-233.
20. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S, 1999. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 14: 622-24.
21. Boice R, Jones F, 1984. Why academics don't write, Journal of Higher Education, 55: 567 - 582.
22. Bordage G, Caelleigh AS, Steinecke A, Bland CJ, Crandall SJ, McGaghie WC, 2001. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Academic Medicine, 76: 897-978.
23. Bornstein RJ, 1991. Manuscript review in psychology: psychometrics, demand characteristics and an alternative model. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 12: 429 -68.
24. Burnham JC, 1990. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1323-9.
25. Burrough-Boenisch J, 2003. Shapers of published NNS research articles, Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 223-243.
26. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF, 1998. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32: 318-22.
27. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ, 2002. Effect of written feed back by editors on quality of reviews, two randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2781-3.
28. Campanario JM, 2009. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel laureates. Scientometrics; DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5.
29. Cantekin EI, McGuire TW, Potter RL, 1990. Biomedical information, peer review and conflict of interest as they influence public health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1427-1430.
30. Carmi R, Koch C, 2007. Improving peer review with CARMA. Learned Publishing, 20: 173 - 76.
31. Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, 1998. Masking author identity in peer-review: What factors influence masking success? PEER investigators. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 243-45.
32. Cicchetti DV, 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a crossdisciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 119-135.
33. Cicchetti DV, 1997. Referees, editors and publication practices: improving the reliability and usefulness of the peer review system. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 51-62.
34. Cooper LM, 2009. Problems, pitfalls and promise in the peer review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1): 84 -90.
35. Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals 509, U.S 579, 1993
36. Davidoff F, 1998. Masking, blinding and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128: 66-68.
37. Dickersin K, 1990. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10): 1385 - 1389.
38. Diener E, 2006. Editorial. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1: 1 - 4.
39. Earnshaw JJ, Farndon JR, Guillou PJ, Johnson CD, Murie JA, Murray GD, 2000. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 82(4): 133 - 35.
40. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR, 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337: 867 -72.
41. Ehara S, Takahashi K, 2007. Reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to AJR by international authors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 188: w113-w116.
42. Enserink M, 2001. Peer review and quality: A dubious connection? Science, 293 (5538): 2187-2188.
43. Estrada CA, Adina Kalet A, Smith W, Chin MH, 2006. How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine.......and other journals. Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 21: 281-4.
44. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, 1993. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 8: 422-8.
45. Fabiato A, 1994. Anonymity of reviewers. Cardiovascular Research, 28: 1134 -39.
46. Finke RA, 1990. Recommendations for contemporary editorial practices. American Psychologist, 45: 669 - 70.
47. Fiske DW, Fogg L, 1990. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45(5): 591 - 598.
48. Forsdyke DR, 1993. On giraffes and peer review. FASEB Journal, 7(8): 619 - 21.
49. Freeman P, Robbins A, 2006. The publishing gap between the rich and the poor: the focus of Author AID. Journal of Public Health Policy, 27: 2196 -2203.
50. Frey BS, 2003. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116: 205 -223.
51. Gannon F, 2007. Address bias. EMBO reports, 8(5), 421.
52. Garfield E, 1986. Refereeing and peer review, part 2: The research on refereeing and alternatives to the present system. Essays of an Information Scientist, 9: 239 - 248.
53. Garfunkel JM, Lawson EE, Hamrick HJ, Ulsher MH, 1990. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10): 1376 -8.
54. Gibson M, Spong CY, Simonsen SE, Martin S, Scott JR, 2008. Author perceptions of peer review. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 12(3): 646 - 52.
55. Glenn ND, 1982. The journal article review process as a game of chance. Behavioral and Brain Scieces, 5: 211 -212.
56. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN, 1998. Effect on the quality of peer review by blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 237-40.
57. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, 1994. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121: 11-21.
58. Goodstein D, 1995. Ethics and peer review. Nature Biotechnology, 13(6): 618.
59. Goodstein D, 2000. How science works in the U.S, Federal Judiciary reference Manual on Evidence, 66 - 72.
60. Hobbs FDR, Stewart PM, 2006. How should we rate research? British Medical Journal, 332: 983-4.
61. Horrobin DF, 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10): 1438-1441.
62. Horrobin DF, 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 22(2): 51-52.
63. Horton R, 1995. The rhetoric of research. British Medical Journal, 310: 985 - 987.
64. Horton R, 2002. Post publication criticism and the shaping of medical knowledge. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2843-47.
65. Ingelfinger J, 1974. Peer review in biomedical publication. American Journal of Medicine, 56(5): 686 - 92.
66. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F, 2002. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2786-90.
67. Kaplan D, 2005. How to fix peer review: separating its two functions - improving manuscripts and judging their scientific merit - - would help. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14: 321 - 323.
68. Kassirer JP, Campion EW, 1994. Peer review - crude and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 96 -97.
69. Keally CT, 2006. Academic elitists and elite academics: An essay. Sophia International Review, 28: 97 -104.
70. Kennedy D, 2006. Editorial retraction. Science, 311 (5759): 335.
71. Kilwein JH, 1999. Biases in medical literature. Journal of Clinical Pharmacological Therapy, 24: 393-396.
72. Kliewer MA, 2004. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: How reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. American Journal of Roentgenology, 183: 1545-1550.
73. Kronick DA, 1990. Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263: 1321-2.
74. Kuhn T, 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Labland DN, Piette MJ, 1994. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 147-49.
75. Laine C, Murlow C, 2003. Peer review: Integral to science and indispensable to Annals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(12): 1038-1040.
76. Landkroon AP, Enser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ, 2006. Quality assessment of reviewer's reports using a simple instrument. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 108(4): 979 -85.
77. Laufer M, 2007. The culture of scientific publication. Interciencia, 32(10): 684.
78. Lillis T, Curry MJ, 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English - medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1): 3-35.
79. Link AM, 1998. US and non US submissions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 246-247.
80. Lloyd ME, 1990. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23: 539-543.
81. Lock S, 1994. Does editorial peer review work? Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(1): 60-61.
82. Lundberg GD, 1998. The role and function of professional journals in the transfer of information. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 4: 51-8.
83. Mahoney MJ, 1977. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmation bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1: 161 -175.
84. Marshall E, 1995. Suit alleges misuse of peer review. Science, 270 (5244): 1912 -1914.
85. Marusic M, Misak A, Kljakovic-Gaspic M, Fister K, Hren D, Marusic A, 2004. Producing a scientific journal in a small scientific community, an authorhelpful policy. International Microbiology, 7(2).
86. McCutchen CW, 1991. Peer review - Treacherous servant, disastrous master. Technology Review, 94: 27- 40.
87. McDonald RJ, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF, 2007. Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: outcomes and commentary. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 28(8): 1430-4.
88. McLellan F, 2001. Peer-review meeting participants urge greater accountability. Lancet, 358: 991.
89. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, 1990. The effects of double-blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10): 1371-76.
90. Misak A, Marusic M, Marusic A, 2005. Manuscript editing as a way of teaching academic writing: xperience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14: 122 -132.
91. Nickerson RS, 1998. Confirmation bias. A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2: 175 - 220.
92. Nickerson RS, 2005. What authors want from journal reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 60: 661 - 2.
93. Osmond DH, 1983. Malice's wonderland: Research funding and peer review. Journal of Neurobiology, 14: 95-112.
94. Peters DP, Cesi SJ, 1982. Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 187-195.
95. Pierie JPEN, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJPM, 1996. Reader's evaluation of the effect of peer review and editing on qualities of articles in the The Nederlands Tijdschrift Voon Geneeskunde. Lancet; 348(9040): 1480-1483.
96. PRC (Publishing Research Consortium), 2008. Peer review in scholarly journals, Mark ware Consulting, Bristol, available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
97. Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F, 1998. Changes to manuscript during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 227-228.
98. Ray J, Berkwits M, Davidoff F, 2000. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal. American Journal of Medicine, 109(2): 131-5.
99. Regehr G, Bordage G, 2006. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education, 40(9): 832 -39.
100. Relman AS, 1990. Peer review in scientific journals - what good is it? Western Journal of Medicine, 153: 520-2.
101. Rennie D, 1986. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 256: 2391-2.
102. Rennie D, 1998. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 300 -302.
103. Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J, 2000. A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93 (4): 164 -167.
104. Rindova V, 2008. Editor's comments: Publishing theory when you are new to the game. Academy of Management Review, 33: 300 -303.
105. Rivara FP, Cummings P, Ringold S, Bergman AB, Joffe A, Christakis DA, 2007. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Journal of Pediatrics; 151: 202 - 05.
106. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, 1994. Effect of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272 (2): 119-21.
107. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN, 2000. Reproducibility of peer reviews in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123: 1964-9.
108. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM et al, 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295: 1675-80.
109. Rowland F, 2002. The peer review process. Learned Publishing, 15: 247-258.
110. Saper CB, Maunsell JH, Sagvolden T, 2009. The neuroscience peer review consortium. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5:4.
111. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R, 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 328: 673.
112. Schroter S, Hutchings A, Black N, 2006. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (3): 314 -7.
113. Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, 2009. The peer review and editorial system: Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1): 54 -61.
114. Seals DR, Tanaka H, 2000. Manuscript peer review: A helpful check list for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1): 52 -8.
115. Seglen PO. 1997. Why the impact factor for journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314: 497.
116. Shashok K, 2004. An unhappy equation: mistrust + confusion + politics=interference with science information transfer. European Science Editing, 31(1): 11 - 14.
117. Shashok K, 2008. Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feed back about the writing? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8: 3.
118. Siegelman SS, 1991. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology, 178: 637.
119. Smith R, 2006. The Trouble with Medical Journals, London, Royal Society of Medicine
120. Snell L, Spencer J, 2005. Reviewer's perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39(1): 143 -145.
121. Spier R, 2002. The history of the peer review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20:357-58.
122. Stehbens WE, 1999. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Medical Hypotheses, 52: 31-6.
123. Suls J, Martin R, 2009. The air we breathe: a critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1): 40 - 50.
124. Swan A, 1999. What authors want: the ALPSP research study on the motivation and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing, 12(3): 170 -172.
125. Tharyan P, Adhikary SD, 2007. Randomized controlled clinical trials - critical issues. Journal of Anesthesia and Clinical Pharmacology, 22(3):231-40.
126. Tite L, Schroter S, 2007. Why peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61: 9-12.
127. Tsang EWK, Frey BS, 2007. The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6: 28-36.
128. Turner L, 2003. Promoting F.A.I.T.H in peer review: Five core attributes of effective peer review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1(2): 181-1888.
129. Vandenbroucke JP, 1998. 175th anniversary lecture: Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge. Lancet, 352 (9145): 2001-6.
130. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R, 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewer's recommendations: a randomized trial. British Medical Journal, 318: 23 - 27.
131. Van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F, 1999. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer review of manuscripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52: 625-9.
132. Wager E, Middleton P, 2002. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2821- 4.
133. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS, 2006. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater - blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4: 13.
134. Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G, 2000. Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176: 47-51.
135. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle J, Callaham ML, 2002. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287 (21): 2790 - 3.
136. Wenneras C, Wold A, 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387: 341-343.
137. Wyer RS, 1978. Excerpts from letters received by Bibb Latane. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4: 29 -30.
138. Yalow RS, 1982. Competency testing for reviewers and editors. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 244 - 245.
139. Yankauer A, 1985. Peering at peer review. CBE Reviews, 8: 7-10.