The ups and downs of peer review.

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.

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

[2]  Bruce E. Wampold,et al.  Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a (statistically) significant relationship? , 1982 .

[3]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer review--a study of reliability. , 1982, Change.

[5]  C. Tipton.  MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE???1984 , 1984 .

[6]  Erdem I. Cantekin,et al.  Biomedical Information, Peer Review, and Conflict of Interest as They Influence Public Health , 1989 .

[7]  L. Hargens,et al.  Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences. , 1990, JAMA.

[8]  A. Weller.  Editorial peer review in US medical journals. , 1990, JAMA.

[9]  Margaret E. Lloyd,et al.  Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

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

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

[12]  D. Kronick.  Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.

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

[14]  E. Knoll,et al.  The communities of scientists and journal peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[15]  J. Burnham.  The evolution of editorial peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[16]  Philip W. Goetz.  The New Encyclopaedia Britannica , 1991 .

[17]  D. Southgate.  The ethics of peer review , 1992, British Journal of Nutrition.

[18]  S. Goodman,et al.  Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  J. R. Gilbert,et al.  Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? , 1994, JAMA.

[20]  E. Lawson,et al.  Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. , 1994, JAMA.

[21]  S Lock,et al.  Does Editorial Peer Review Work? , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  D. Laband,et al.  A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. , 1994, JAMA.

[23]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. , 1994, JAMA.

[24]  A. Weller,et al.  A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. , 1996, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[25]  G. Omenn,et al.  The messenger under attack -- intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation , 1997 .

[27]  F. Davidoff,et al.  Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. , 1998, JAMA.

[28]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[29]  C. Bingham,et al.  Peer review on the Internet: launching eMJA peer review study 2 , 1998, The Medical journal of Australia.

[30]  J F Waeckerle,et al.  Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1998, JAMA.

[31]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. , 1998, JAMA.

[32]  D. Rennie,et al.  Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators. , 1998, JAMA.

[33]  N. Black,et al.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[34]  W. Stehbens,et al.  Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. , 1999, Medical hypotheses.

[35]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.

[36]  J. H. Kilwein,et al.  Biases in medical literature , 1999, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

[37]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Peer Review in Health Sciences , 1999 .

[38]  T. Rumsey.  One editor's views on conflict of interest. , 1999, Journal of animal science.

[39]  Faith McLellan,et al.  Ethical issues in biomedical publication , 2000 .

[40]  Peer-review meeting participants urge greater accountability , 2001, The Lancet.

[41]  Sara Schroter,et al.  Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  Richard Horton,et al.  Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. , 2002, JAMA.

[43]  Dale J Benos,et al.  How to review a paper. , 2003, Advances in physiology education.

[44]  M. Hojat,et al.  Impartial Judgment by the “Gatekeepers” of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process , 2003, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[45]  Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas,et al.  Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication , 2010, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.

[46]  Carlos Alberto Guimarães,et al.  Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication , 2008, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[47]  David J. Kosek,et al.  Ethics and scientific publication. , 2005, Advances in physiology education.

[48]  John Spencer,et al.  Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal , 2005, Medical education.

[49]  M. Isohanni.  Peer review – still the well‐functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research , 2005, Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica.

[50]  Constance Holden.  Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. , 2005, Science.

[51]  J. Giles.  Internet encyclopaedias go head to head , 2005, Nature.

[52]  Constance Holden.  Korean Cloner Admits Lying About Oocyte Donations , 2005, Science.

[53]  A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[54]  Francis L. Macrina.  Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research , 2005 .

[55]  Ulrich Pöschl,et al.  An open, two-stage peer-review journal , 2006 .

[56]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. , 2006, JAMA.

[57]  Chris Tyler.  Sense about science , 2006 .

[58]  A. Mccook.  Is Peer Review Broken , 2006 .

[59]  Jennifer Couzin,et al.  ... And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors , 2006, Science.

[60]  Ermenegyldo Munhoz Junior.  Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas , 2006 .

[61]  Systems - Opening up the process , 2006 .

[62]  C. Gross,et al.  Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.

[63]  Fiona Godlee,et al.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review , 1999, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[64]  J. PérezMartín,et al.  [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.

[65]  Misconceptions about Helmont ’ s Willow Experiment , .