Asian Journal of Surgery
Volume 32, Issue 4 , Pages 240-246 , October 2009

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

  • Kamal Kumar Mahawar

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Sunderland, UK
    • ,
  • Deepak Kejariwal

      Affiliations

    • Department of Gastroenterology, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress 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
    • ,
  • Ajay Malviya

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics, Wansbeck General Hospital, Ashington, UK
    • ,
  • Rashmi Birla

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, Durham, UK
    • ,
  • Y.K.S. Viswanath

      Affiliations

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

,Accepted 10 August 2009.

References 

  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. Kumar NB , Ranjit M , Sunil M . The agony and the ecstasy of the peer-review process . Ind J Opthal . 2005;53:153–155
  3. Grainger DW . Peer review as professional responsibility: a quality control system only as good as the participants . Biomaterials . 2007;28:5199–5203
  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. Mainguy G , Motamedi MR , Mietchen D . World Academy of Young Scientists. Peer review—the newcomers' perspective . PLoS Biol . 2005;3:e326
  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. Rennie D . Freedom and responsibility in medical publication . JAMA . 1998;280:300–332
  8. Wenneras C , Wold A . Nepotism and sexism in peer-review . Nature . 1997;387:341–343
  9. Weil J . Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process . J Genet Couns . 2004;13:183–187
  10. Laine C , Mulrow C . Peer review: integral to Science and indispensable to Annals . Ann Intern Med . 2003;139:1038–1040
  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. No authors listed  . Peer review and fraud . Nature . 2006;444:971–972
  13. White C . Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth . BMJ . 2005;331:281–288
  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. 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
  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. Tite L , Schroter S . Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey . J Epidemiol Community Health . 2007;61:9–12
  18. Walsh E , Rooney M , Appleby L , et al.   Open peer review— a randomized controlled trial . Br J Psychiatr . 2000;176:47–51
  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. MacMullan E . Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information . J Neuroophthalmol . 2008;28:72–74
  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

PII: S1015-9584(09)60401-2

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

Asian Journal of Surgery
Volume 32, Issue 4 , Pages 240-246 , October 2009

Article Tools