Peer review: Is the process broken?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 199, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 243-

  Berquist, Thomas H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION;

HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84864742294     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9256     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Nielsen M. Three myths about scientific peer review. michaelnielsen.org/ blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review. Accessed June 8, 2012
2. Weller AC. Editorial peer review in U.S. medical journals. JAMA 1990; 263:1344-1347 (Pubitemid 20069938)
3. Solomon DJ. The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. J Electronic Publishing. quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=jep;cc=jep;rgn=main;view=text;idno=3336451.0010.107. Published Winter 2007. Accessed June 8, 2012
4. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? JAMA 2002; 287:2765-2767 (Pubitemid 34591958)
5. Smith R. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12(suppl 4): S13
6. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review: scientific quality or smokescreen? BMJ 1999; 318:44-45 (Pubitemid 29188902)
7. Berquist TH. Editors and reviewers: roles and responsibility. AJR 2012; 198:245
8. Jefferson T. Quality and value: models of quality control for scientific research. Nature. www.nature.com/nature;peerreview/debate/nature05031.html. Accessed June 8, 2012