Peer Review Practices in Biomedical Literature: A Time for Change?
Article Outline
Objective
The purpose of this study was to collect the opinions of a cross section of published authors on current practices concerning peer review in biomedical publishing.
Methods
A questionnaire on various aspects of peer review was emailed to authors, whose manuscripts were published in Gut or the British Journal of Surgery between 2001 and 2006. Authors were asked to base their responses on their overall experience with peer review in biomedical literature and not with that one particular journal.
Results
Most respondents felt that peer review is an effective quality control mechanism and does help improve manuscripts. Although some felt that it may cause delays in publication, lead to some research being lost and may not prevent all research-related fraud, most authors felt that there was still a strong role for the peer review process as it exists today.
Conclusion
An overwhelming majority of authors in our study approved of the current peer review practices in biomedical literature. A minority did however seem concerned. We discuss here the surrounding issues.
Key Words: biomedical publishing , peer review
No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.
References
- . Peer Review . Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Abuse_of_inside_information_by_reviewers [Date accessed: 20 August 2008]
- . The agony and the ecstasy of the peer-review process . Ind J Opthal . 2005;53:153–155
- . Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants . Biomaterials . 2007;28:5199–5203
- Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2007;(2): MR000016.
- . World Academy of Young Scientists. Peer review—the newcomers' perspective . PLoS Biol . 2005;3:e326
- Greaves S, Scott J, Clarke M, et al. Nature's trial of open peer review. doi:10.1038/nature05535. Available from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html [Date accessed: 20 August 2008]
- . Freedom and responsibility in medical publication . JAMA . 1998;280:300–332
- . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review . Nature . 1997;387:341–343
- . Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process . J Genet Couns . 2004;13:183–187
- . Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals . Ann Intern Med . 2003;139:1038–1040
- Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial . PLoS ONE . 2007;2:e332; Available from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000332 [Date accessed: 20 August 2008]
- . Peer review and fraud . Nature . 2006;444:971–972
- . Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth . BMJ . 2005;331:281–288
- Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial . Ann Neurol . 2007;61:10–12
- . Who publishes in leading general surgical journals? The divide between the developed and developing worlds . Asian J Surg . 2006;29:140–144
- Ware M, Monkman M. Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community—An International Study. London: Mark Ware Consulting for the Publishing Research Consortium. Available from http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf [Date accessed: 20 August 2008]
- . Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey . J Epidemiol Community Health . 2007;61:9–12
- Open peer review— a randomized controlled trial . Br J Psychiatr . 2000;176:47–51
- Effect of open review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomized trial . BMJ . 1999;218:23–27
- . Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information . J Neuroophthalmol . 2008;28:72–74
- Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction . JAMA . 2002;287:2790–2793
PII: S1015-9584(09)60401-2
doi:10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60401-2
© 2009 Asian Surgical Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
