Peer review of the biomedical literature.

Peer review is the assessment by experts of material submitted for publication. The peer reviewer serves the editor by substantiating the quality of the manuscript, and serves the author by giving constructive criticism. This system has benefits and drawbacks, including the tendency to select against novel work. Reviewers, whose work is generally unpaid, tend to be academicians who review for several journals and are authors and editors themselves. Editors often blind reviewers to authors to reduce bias, but reviewers frequently recognize the author anyhow. Blinding authors to reviewers may protect the reviewer. Manuscripts rejected by one journal because of peer review are usually published in another. Since peer review serves to validate the quality of the biomedical literature, the process should be valid itself.

[1]  R. Fletcher,et al.  The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. , 1990, JAMA.

[2]  P P Morgan Anonymity in medical journals. , 1984, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[3]  T. Stossel,et al.  Reviewer status and review quality. Experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Peer and/or peerless review. Some vagaries of the editorial process. , 1985, Archives of surgery.

[5]  D F Horrobin,et al.  The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. , 1990, JAMA.

[6]  J C Bailar,et al.  The need for a research agenda. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  E. Robin,et al.  Peer review in medical journals. , 1987, Chest.

[8]  David Cargill,et al.  Medical communication: the old and the new , 1982, British medical journal.

[9]  Helen L Reynolds The Scientist as Editor: Guidelines for Editors of Books and Journals , 1980 .

[10]  G. Lundberg,et al.  Peer Review at JAMA—1985 , 1986 .

[11]  E. Cantekin,et al.  Biomedical information, peer review, and conflict of interest as they influence public health. , 1990, JAMA.

[12]  J. Wilson Peer review and publication. Presidential address before the 70th annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, San Francisco, California, 30 April 1978. , 1978, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[13]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.

[14]  A. Yankauer,et al.  Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.

[15]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  C. Booth Medical communication: the old and new. The development of medical journals in Britain. , 1982, British medical journal.

[17]  Cheryl Iverson,et al.  American Medical Association manual of style , 1989 .

[18]  E. Lawson,et al.  Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. , 1990, JAMA.

[19]  J Smith,et al.  What do peer reviewers do? , 1990, JAMA.

[20]  F. Ingelfinger Peer review in biomedical publication. , 1974, The American journal of medicine.

[21]  R. Yalow,et al.  Radioimmunoassay: A Probe for Fine Structure of Biologic Systems , 1992 .