Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals

被引:34
作者
Gasparyan, Armen Yuri [1 ,2 ]
Kitas, George D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Russells Hall Hosp, Dudley Grp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Rheumatol, Clin Res Unit, Dudley, England
[2] Russells Hall Hosp, Dudley Grp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Res & Dev, Clin Res Unit, Dudley, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Arthrit Res UK Epidemiol Unit, Manchester, Lancs, England
关键词
PUBLICATION; EDITORS; RECOMMENDATIONS; MANUSCRIPTS; ARTICLES;
D O I
10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
引用
收藏
页码:386 / 389
页数:4
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   UK Parliament comments on peer review [J].
不详 .
NATURE CELL BIOLOGY, 2011, 13 (10) :1153-1153
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2008, LANCET, V371, P447, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60209-3
[3]   The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals [J].
Ardakan, Mohammad Abooyee ;
Mirzaie, Seyyed Ayatollah ;
Sheikhshoaei, Fatemeh .
JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, 2011, 42 (02) :243-261
[4]  
Arunachalam S., 2003, INT INF LIBR REV, V35, P133, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S1057-2317(03)00032-8, 10.1080/10572317.2003.10762596]
[5]   What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? [J].
Black, N ;
van Rooyen, S ;
Godlee, F ;
Smith, R ;
Evans, S .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :231-233
[6]  
Bornmann L., 2011, EUROPEAN SCI EDITING, V37, P41
[7]   Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review:: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 59 (11) :1841-1852
[8]   Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Marx, Werner ;
Gasparyan, Armen Yuri ;
Kitas, George D. .
RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 32 (07) :1861-1867
[9]   The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2009, 22 (02) :117-125
[10]   THE EVOLUTION OF EDITORIAL PEER-REVIEW [J].
BURNHAM, JC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10) :1323-1329