Peer Review Practices in Biomedical Literature: A Time for Change?

Accepted 10 August 2009.

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.

Article Outline

• Abstract

• References

• Copyright

References

1. 1 Wikipedia . Peer Review . Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Abuse_of_inside_information_by_reviewers [Date accessed: 20 August 2008] .

2. 2 Kumar NB , Ranjit M , Sunil M . The agony and the ecstasy of the peer-review process . Ind J Opthal . 2005;53:153–155 .

3. 3 Grainger DW . Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants . Biomaterials . 2007;28:5199–5203 . CrossRef

4. 4 Jefferson T , Rudin M , Brodney Folse S , et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2007;(2): MR000016. .

5. 5 Mainguy G , Motamedi MR , Mietchen D . World Academy of Young Scientists. Peer review—the newcomers' perspective . PLoS Biol . 2005;3:e326 . CrossRef

6. 6 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]

7. 7 Rennie D . Freedom and responsibility in medical publication . JAMA . 1998;280:300–332 . MEDLINE | CrossRef

8. 8 Wenneras C , Wold A . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review . Nature . 1997;387:341–343 . MEDLINE | CrossRef

9. 9 Weil J . Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process . J Genet Couns . 2004;13:183–187 . MEDLINE | CrossRef

10. 10 Laine C , Mulrow C . Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals . Ann Intern Med . 2003;139:1038–1040 .

11. 11 Cobo E , Selva-O'Callagham A , Ribera JM , et al. 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] .

12. 12 No authors listed . Peer review and fraud . Nature . 2006;444:971–972 . CrossRef

13. 13 White C . Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth . BMJ . 2005;331:281–288 .

14. 14 Johnston SC , Lowenstein DH , Ferriero DM , et al. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial . Ann Neurol . 2007;61:10–12 .

15. 15 Mahawar KK , Malviya A , Kumar G . Who publishes in leading general surgical journals? The divide between the developed and developing worlds . Asian J Surg . 2006;29:140–144 . Abstract | Full-Text PDF (90 KB)

16. 16 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]

17. 17 Tite L , Schroter S . Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey . J Epidemiol Community Health . 2007;61:9–12 . CrossRef

18. 18 Walsh E , Rooney M , Appleby L , et al. Open peer review— a randomized controlled trial . Br J Psychiatr . 2000;176:47–51 .

19. 19 Van Rooyen S , Godlee F , Evans S , et al. Effect of open review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomized trial . BMJ . 1999;218:23–27 .

20. 20 MacMullan E . Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information . J Neuroophthalmol . 2008;28:72–74 . CrossRef

21. 21 Weber EJ , Katz PP , Waeckerle JF , et al. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction . JAMA . 2002;287:2790–2793 . MEDLINE | CrossRef

a Department of Surgery, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK

b Department of Gastroenterology, UK

c Department of Orthopaedics, Wansbeck General Hospital, Ashington, UK

d Department of Surgery, County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, Durham, UK

e Department of Surgery, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesborough, UK

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Deepak Kejariwal, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Durham, North Road, Durham, County Durham DH1 5TW, United Kingdom

PII: S1015-9584(09)60401-2

doi:10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60401-2

8 of 11