Research peer review: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett
imported>Robert Badgett
Line 17: Line 17:
{{main|Publication bias}}
{{main|Publication bias}}


==New developments==
==Post-publication peer review==
Post-publication peer review may be limited by the lack of responses by authors to comments on their articles.<ref name="pmid20699306">{{cite journal| author=Gøtzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A| title=Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. | journal=BMJ | year= 2010 | volume= 341 | issue=  | pages= c3926 | pmid=20699306 | pmc=PMC2919680 | doi=10.1136/bmj.c3926 }} </ref>
 
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref>
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref>
 
==References==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>

Revision as of 07:30, 10 September 2010

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Audio [?]
Video [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Research_peer_review&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Research peer review is part of the editorial process of academic journals and scientific journals and is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."[1][2]

Peer review is meant to improve the quality of reporting[3] and readability[4] of manuscripts.[5] The cost of manuscript peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).[6]

Peer review is also used in reviewing of grant applications.[7] Research peer review of grant applications is time-consuming.[8]

Problems

Problems with peer review have been summarized.[9]

Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.[10]

Reviewers may miss important mistakes in articles.[11]

Publication bias

For more information, see: Publication bias.


Post-publication peer review

Post-publication peer review may be limited by the lack of responses by authors to comments on their articles.[12]

Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.[13]

References

  1. ↑ Anonymous (2024), Research peer review (English). Medical Subject Headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
  2. ↑ Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN (1994). "Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?". JAMA 272 (2): 117–9. PMID 8015119. [e]
  3. ↑ Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH (1994). "Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Ann. Intern. Med. 121 (1): 11–21. PMID 8198342. [e]
  4. ↑ Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW (1994). "Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine". JAMA 272 (2): 119–21. PMID 8015120. [e]
  5. ↑ Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (2007). "Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): MR000016. DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMID 17443635. Retrieved on 2008-06-26. Research Blogging.
  6. ↑ Zoë Corbyn (2008). Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn. Times Higher Education.
  7. ↑ Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C (2007). "Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): MR000003. DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000003.pub2. PMID 17443627. Retrieved on 2008-06-26. Research Blogging.
  8. ↑ Wessely S (1998). "Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?". Lancet 352 (9124): 301-5. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1. PMID 9690424. Research Blogging.
  9. ↑ Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology .
  10. ↑ Ernst E, Resch KL (August 1994). "Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study". J. Lab. Clin. Med. 124 (2): 178–82. PMID 8051481. Retrieved on 2008-06-26. [e]
  11. ↑ Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML (September 1998). "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance". Ann Emerg Med 32 (3 Pt 1): 310–7. PMID 9737492. Retrieved on 2008-06-26. [e]
  12. ↑ Gøtzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A (2010). "Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study.". BMJ 341: c3926. DOI:10.1136/bmj.c3926. PMID 20699306. PMC PMC2919680. Research Blogging.
  13. ↑ Young JR (2008-04-02). Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Research_peer_review&oldid=448926"