Research peer review: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert Badgett No edit summary |
imported>Robert Badgett |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Problems== | ==Problems== | ||
Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.<ref name="pmid8051481">{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Resch KL |title=Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study |journal=J. Lab. Clin. Med. |volume=124 |issue=2 |pages=178–82 |year=1994 |month=August |pmid=8051481 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2008-06-26}}</ref> | Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.<ref name="pmid8051481">{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Resch KL |title=Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study |journal=J. Lab. Clin. Med. |volume=124 |issue=2 |pages=178–82 |year=1994 |month=August |pmid=8051481 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2008-06-26}}</ref> | ||
Reviewers may miss important mistakes in articles.<ref name="pmid9737492">{{cite journal |author=Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML |title=Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance |journal=Ann Emerg Med |volume=32 |issue=3 Pt 1 |pages=310–7 |year=1998 |month=September |pmid=9737492 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2008-06-26}}</ref> | |||
==New developments== | ==New developments== | ||
Revision as of 15:29, 26 June 2008
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 improves the quality[3] and readability[4] of manuscripts.
The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).[5]
Problems
Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.[6]
Reviewers may miss important mistakes in articles.[7]
New developments
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.[8]
References
- ↑ Anonymous (2024), Research peer review (English). Medical Subject Headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
- ↑ 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]
- ↑ 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]
- ↑ 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]
- ↑ Zoë Corbyn (2008). Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn. Times Higher Education.
- ↑ 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]
- ↑ 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]
- ↑ 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.