Peer Review

7/18/2020 Peer review - Wikipedia
Peer review
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more
people with similar competencies as the producers of the
work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by
qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.
Peer review methods are used to maintain quality
standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.
In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to
determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by A reviewer at the American National
the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., Institutes of Health evaluates a grant
medical peer review. proposal.
Contents
Professional
Scholarly
Government policy
Medical
Technical
Criticism
Low-end distinctions in articles understandable to all
peers
Peer review and trust
Views of peer review
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links
Professional
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving
quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform in
decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[1] Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-
born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[2][3][4]
A prototype professional peer-review process was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician
written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make
duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the
notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would
decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review 1/12
Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer
review.[6] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is
also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[7] Many other professional
fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[8] law,[9][10] engineering (e.g., software
peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[11]
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach
higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This
may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in
science and medicine.[12][13]
Scholarly
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's
scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a
paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer
review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee)
decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.
Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are
qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less
narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance
(good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is
generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals.
However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research,[14] and there is little evidence
that peer review improves the quality of published papers.[15]
There are attempts to reform the peer review process, including from the fields of metascience and
journalology. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and
to provide it with a scientific foundation.[16][17] Alternatives to common peer review practices have
been put to the test,[18][19] in particular open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers,
generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and
BioMed Central.
Government policy
The European Union has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in
the fields of active labour market policy since 1999.[20] In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in
social inclusion.[21] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a
"host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries
and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local
sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an
expert report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on
the web.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance
Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member
countries in improving their environmental policies.
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor
of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates
that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the
scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be
submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the
California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[22]
Medical
Medical peer review may be distinguished in 4 classifications: 1) clinical peer review; 2) peer
evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses;[23][24] 3) scientific peer review of
journal articles; 4) a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently
published in medical journals.[25] Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American
Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care
organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional
society membership standards.[26][27] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity,
particularly as a database search term.
Technical
In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a
well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned
roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by
material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within
development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of
products.[28]
Criticism
To an outsider, the anonymous, pre-publication peer review process is opaque. Certain journals are
accused of not carrying out stringent peer review in order to more easily expand their customer base,
particularly in journals where authors pay a fee before publication.[29] Richard Smith, MD, former
editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery,
anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias,
unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against
the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and
even years to publish and the process wastes researchers' time. As for the cost, the Research
Information Network estimated the global cost of peer review at £1.9 billion in 2008."[30]
In addition, Australia's Innovative Research Universities group (a coalition of seven comprehensive

universities committed to inclusive excellence in teaching, learning and research in Australia) has
found that "peer review disadvantages researchers in their early careers, when they rely on
competitive grants to cover their salaries, and when unsuccessful funding applications often mark the
end of a research idea".[31]
Low-end distinctions in articles understandable to all peers
John Ioannidis argues that since the exams and other tests that people pass on their way from
"layman" to "expert" focus on answering the questions in time and in accordance with a list of
answers, and not on making precise distinctions (the latter of which would be unrecognizable to
experts of lower cognitive precision), there is as much individual variation in the ability to distinguish
causation from correlation among "experts" as there is among "laymen". Ioannidis argues that as a
result, scholarly peer review by many "experts" allows only articles that are understandable at a wide
range of cognitive precision levels including very low ones to pass, biasing publications towards
favoring articles that infer causation from correlation while mislabelling articles that make the
distinction as "incompetent overestimation of one's ability" on the side of the authors because some
of the reviewing "experts" are cognitively unable to distinguish the distinction from alleged
rationalization of specific conclusions. It is argued by Ioannidis that this makes peer review a cause of
selective publication of false research findings while stopping publication of rigorous criticism
thereof, and that further post-publication review repeats the same bias by selectively retracting the
few rigorous articles that may have made it through initial pre-publication peer review while letting
the low-end ones that confuse correlation and causation remain in print.[32]
Peer review and trust
Researchers have peer reviewed manuscripts prior to publishing them in a variety of ways since the
18th century.[33][34] The main goal of this practice is to improve the relevance and accuracy of
scientific discussions. Even though experts often criticize peer review for a number of reasons, the
process is still often considered the "gold standard" of science.[35] Occasionally however, peer review
approves studies that are later found to be wrong and rarely deceptive or fraudulent results are
discovered prior to publication.[36][37] Thus, there seems to be an element of discord between the
ideology behind and the practice of peer review. By failing to effectively communicate that peer
review is imperfect, the message conveyed to the wider public is that studies published in peer-
reviewed journals are "true" and that peer review protects the literature from flawed science. A
number of well-established criticisms exist of many elements of peer review.[38][39][40] In the
following we describe cases of the wider impact inappropriate peer review can have on public
understanding of scientific literature.
Multiple examples across several areas of science find that scientists elevated the importance of peer
review for research that was questionable or corrupted. For example, climate change deniers have
published studies in the Energy and Environment journal, attempting to undermine the body of
research that shows how human activity impacts the Earth's climate. Politicians in the United States
who reject the established science of climate change have then cited this journal on several occasions
in speeches and reports.[note 1]
At times, peer review has been exposed as a process that was orchestrated for a preconceived
outcome. The New York Times gained access to confidential peer review documents for studies
sponsored by the National Football League (NFL) that were cited as scientific evidence that brain
injuries do not cause long-term harm to its players.[note 2] During the peer review process, the authors
of the study stated that all NFL players were part of a study, a claim that the reporters found to be
false by examining the database used for the research. Furthermore, The Times noted that the NFL
sought to legitimize the studies" methods and conclusion by citing a "rigorous, confidential peer-
review process" despite evidence that some peer reviewers seemed "desperate" to stop their
publication. Recent research has also demonstrated that widespread industry funding for published
medical research often goes undeclared and that such conflicts of interest are not appropriately
addressed by peer review.[41][42]
Another problem that peer review fails to catch is ghostwriting, a process by which companies draft
articles for academics who then publish them in journals, sometimes with little or no changes.[43]
These studies can then be used for political, regulatory and marketing purposes. In 2010, the US
Senate Finance Committee released a report that found this practice was widespread, that it
corrupted the scientific literature and increased prescription rates.[note 3] Ghostwritten articles have
appeared in dozens of journals, involving professors at several universities.[note 4]
Just as experts in a particular field have a better understanding of the value of papers published in
their area, scientists are considered to have better grasp of the value of published papers than the
general public and to see peer review as a human process, with human failings,[44] and that "despite
its limitations, we need it. It is all we have, and it is hard to imagine how we would get along without
it".[45] But these subtleties are lost on the general public, who are often misled into thinking that
published in a journal with peer review is the "gold standard" and can erroneously equate published
research with the truth.[44] Thus, more care must be taken over how peer review, and the results of
peer reviewed research, are communicated to non-specialist audiences; particularly during a time in
which a range of technical changes and a deeper appreciation of the complexities of peer review are
emerging.[46][47][48][49] This will be needed as the scholarly publishing system has to confront wider
issues such as retractions[37][50][51] and replication or reproducibility "crisis'.[52][53][54]
Views of peer review
Peer review is often considered integral to scientific discourse in one form or another. Its gatekeeping
role is supposed to be necessary to maintain the quality of the scientific literature[55][56] and avoid a
risk of unreliable results, inability to separate signal from noise, and slow scientific progress.[57][58]
Shortcomings of peer review have been met with calls for even stronger filtering and more
gatekeeping. A common argument in favor of such initiatives is the belief that this filter is needed to
maintain the integrity of the scientific literature.[59][60]
Calls for more oversight have at least two implications that are counterintuitive of what is known to
be true scholarship.[44]
1. The belief that scholars are incapable of evaluating the quality of work on their own, that they are
in need of a gatekeeper to inform them of what is good and what is not.
2. The belief that scholars need a "guardian" to make sure they are doing good work.
Others argue[44] that authors most of all have a vested interest in the quality of a particular piece of
work. Only the authors could have, as Feynman (1974)[note 5] puts it, the "extra type of integrity that
is beyond not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist." If anything, the current peer review process and academic system
could penalize, or at least fail to incentivize, such integrity.
Instead, the credibility conferred by the "peer-reviewed" label could diminish what Feynman calls the
culture of doubt necessary for science to operate a self-correcting, truth-seeking process.[61] The
effects of this can be seen in the ongoing replication crisis, hoaxes, and widespread outrage over the
inefficacy of the current system.[38][33] It's common to think that more oversight is the answer, as
peer reviewers are not at all lacking in skepticism. But the issue is not the skepticism shared by the
select few who determine whether an article passes through the filter. It is the validation, and
accompanying lack of skepticism, that comes afterwards.[note 6] Here again more oversight only adds
to the impression that peer review ensures quality, thereby further diminishing the culture of doubt
and counteracting the spirit of scientific inquiry.[note 7]
Quality research - even some of our most fundamental scientific discoveries - dates back centuries,
long before peer review took its current form.[33][62][34] Whatever peer review existed centuries ago,
it took a different form than it does in modern times, without the influence of large, commercial
publishing companies or a pervasive culture of publish or perish.[62] Though in its initial conception
it was often a laborious and time-consuming task, researchers took peer review on nonetheless, not
out of obligation but out of duty to uphold the integrity of their own scholarship. They managed to do
so, for the most part, without the aid of centralised journals, editors, or any formalised or
institutionalised process whatsoever. Supporters of modern technology argue[44] that it makes it
possible to communicate instantaneously with scholars around the globe, make such scholarly
exchanges easier, and restore peer review to a purer scholarly form, as a discourse in which
researchers engage with one another to better clarify, understand, and communicate their
insights.[47][63]
Such modern technology includes posting results to preprint servers, preregistration of studies, open
peer review, and other open science practices.[53][64][65] In all these initiatives, the role of
gatekeeping remains prominent, as if a necessary feature of all scholarly communication, but critics
argue[40] that a proper, real-world implementation could test and disprove this assumption;
demonstrate researchers' desire for more that traditional journals can offer; show that researchers
can be entrusted to perform their own quality control independent of journal-coupled review. Jon
Tennant also argues that the outcry over the inefficiencies of traditional journals centers on their
inability to provide rigorous enough scrutiny, and the outsourcing of critical thinking to a concealed
and poorly-understood process. Thus, the assumption that journals and peer review are required to
protect scientific integrity seems to undermine the very foundations of scholarly inquiry.[44]
To test the hypothesis that filtering is indeed unnecessary to quality control, many of the traditional
publication practices would need to be redesigned, editorial boards repurposed if not disbanded, and
authors granted control over the peer review of their own work. Putting authors in charge of their
own peer review is seen as serving a dual purpose.[44] On one hand, it removes the conferral of
quality within the traditional system, thus eliminating the prestige associated with the simple act of
publishing. Perhaps paradoxically, the removal of this barrier might actually result in an increase of
the quality of published work, as it eliminates the cachet of publishing for its own sake. On the other
hand, readers know that there is no filter so they must interpret anything they read with a healthy
dose of skepticism, thereby naturally restoring the culture of doubt to scientific practice.[66][67][68]
In addition to concerns about the quality of work produced by well-meaning researchers, there are
concerns that a truly open system would allow the literature to be populated with junk and
propaganda by those with a vested interest in certain issues. A counterargument is that the
conventional model of peer review diminishes the healthy skepticism that is a hallmark of scientific
inquiry, and thus confers credibility upon subversive attempts to infiltrate the literature.[44] Allowing
such "junk" to be published could make individual articles less reliable but render the overall
literature more robust by fostering a "culture of doubt".[66]
One initiative experimenting in this area is Researchers.One, a non-profit peer review publication
platform featuring a novel author-driven peer review process.[69] Other similar examples include the
Self-Journal of Science, PRElights, and The Winnower, which do not yet seem to have greatly
disrupted the traditional peer review workflow. Supporters conclude that researchers are more than
responsible and competent enough to ensure their own quality control; they just need the means and
the authority to do so.[44]
See also
Objectivity (philosophy)
Academic publishing
Scientific literature
Notes
1. "Skeptics get a journal" (http://www.realclimate.org/docs/thacker/skeptics.pdf) (PDF)., Paul
Thacker, 2005.
2. "N.F.L.'s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Tobacco Industry" (https://www.nytimes.com/2
016/03/25/sports/football/nfl-concussion-research-tobacco.html)..
3. "Ghostwriting in medical literature" (https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/about/uploa
d/Senator-Grassley-Report.pdf) (PDF)..
4. "Frequently asked questions about medical ghostwriting" (https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2011/06/
frequently-asked-questions-about-medical-ghostwriting/)..
5. "Cargo cult science" (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm)., Richard Feynman.
6. "Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others" (https://www.nytime
s.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.h
tml)., Aaron E. Carroll, New York Times.
7. "Bucking the Big Bang" (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482-900-bucking-the-big-b
ang/)., Eric Lerner, New Scientist.
References
1. Schimanski, Lesley A.; Alperin, Juan Pablo (2018). "The evaluation of scholarship in academic
promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art
icles/PMC6325612). F1000Research. 7: 1605. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16493.1 (https://doi.o
rg/10.12688%2Ff1000research.16493.1). ISSN 2046-1402 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2046-1
402). PMC 6325612 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325612). PMID 30647909
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30647909).
2. Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks" (http://
www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/resource-ref-read/correspond-n
et/08sr-crrsp.htm). University of Florida. Retrieved August 21, 2016.
3. Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
1: 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstl.1665.0001).
4. Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Bibcode:2002heol.book.....B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002heol.book.....B).
ISBN 978-0-19-851053-6.
5. Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–
8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0167-7799%2802%290198
5-6). PMID 12127284 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12127284).
6. Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image" (https://archive.today/2012
0721025646/http://www.annals.org/content/118/7/566.full.pdf+html). Annals of Internal Medicine.
118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014 (https://doi.org/10.7326%2F000
3-4819-118-7-199304010-00014). PMID 8442628 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8442628).
Archived from the original (http://www.annals.org/content/118/7/566.full.pdf+html) on July 21,
2012.
7. Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison
(1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment" (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1653950). American Journal of Public Health. 68 (4):
394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394 (https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.68.4.394).
PMC 1653950 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1653950). PMID 645987 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/645987).
8. "AICPA Peer Review Program Manual" (http://www.aicpa.org/INTERESTAREAS/PEERREVIEW/
RESOURCES/PEERREVIEWPROGRAMMANUAL/Pages/default.aspx). American Institute of
CPAs.
9. "Peer Review" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101014002648/http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civi
l/how/mq_peerreview.asp). UK Legal Services Commission. July 12, 2007. Archived from the
original (http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/how/mq_peerreview.asp) on October 14, 2010.
10. "Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings" (https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-revi
ews/). Martindale. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
11. "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/mgmt/briefing_pa
pers/peer_review_panels.pdf) (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved
October 4, 2010.
12. Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (ht
tps://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/jnrlse/pdfs/jnr018/018-02-0105.pdf) (PDF). Journal of
Agronomic Education. 18: 105–108. "The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity
for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by
scientific journals"
13. Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the
Classroom" (http://chans-net.org/sites/chans-net.org/files/peer_review.pdf) (PDF). BioScience. 52
(9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2 (https://doi.org/10.1641%2
F0006-3568%282002%29052%5B0824%3APRITC%5D2.0.CO%3B2).
14. KupferschmidtAug. 17, Kai; 2018; Am, 9:15 (August 14, 2018). "Researcher at the center of an
epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him" (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201
8/08/researcher-center-epic-fraud-remains-enigma-those-who-exposed-him). Science | AAAS.
Retrieved August 11, 2019.
15. Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer
review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
(https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.341.6152.1331). PMID 24052283 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/24052283).
16. Rennie, Drummond (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature News. 535 (7610):
31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.535...31R).
doi:10.1038/535031a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F535031a). PMID 27383970 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/27383970).
17. Couzin-FrankelSep. 19, Jennifer (September 18, 2018). " 'Journalologists' use scientific methods
to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?" (https://www.sciencemag.org/new
s/2018/09/journalologists-use-scientific-methods-study-academic-publishing-their-work-improvin
g). Science | AAAS. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
18. Cosgrove, Andrew; Cheifet, Barbara (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the
results" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6260718). Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206.
doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13059-018-1584-0). ISSN 1474-
760X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1474-760X). PMC 6260718 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC6260718). PMID 30482224 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30482224).
19. Patterson, Mark; Schekman, Randy (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6019064). eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545 (https://do
i.org/10.7554%2FeLife.36545). ISSN 2050-084X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2050-084X).
PMC 6019064 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6019064). PMID 29944117 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29944117).
20. "Mutual Learning Programme - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission"
(http://ec.europa.eu/social/mlp). ec.europa.eu.
21. "Social Peer to Peer – Online Casino Reviews" (http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu).
www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu.
22. "What is Scientific Peer Review?" (https://ceparev.berkeley.edu/what-is-peer-review/).
ceparev.berkeley.edu. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
23. Medschool.ucsf.edu (http://medschool.ucsf.edu/academy/pdfs/Clinical-Peer-Review-Literature-Ex
cerpts.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100814052748/http://medschool.ucsf.edu/ac
ademy/pdfs/Clinical-Peer-Review-Literature-Excerpts.pdf) August 14, 2010, at the Wayback
Machine
24. Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M (November–December 1998).
"Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educator. 23 (6):
17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008 (https://doi.org/10.1097%2F00006223-1998110
00-00008). PMID 9934106 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9934106).
25. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature
for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801 (https://doi.org/
10.1001%2Fjama.295.15.1801). PMID 16622142 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16622142).
26. Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Physician's Guide to Medical Staff Organization Bylaws (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20110806223838/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/21/omss-byl
aws-4thedition-final.pdf) (PDF). ama-assn.org. p. 131. Archived from the original (http://www.ama
-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/21/omss-bylaws-4thedition-final.pdf) (PDF) on August 6, 2011.
27. "Medical Peer Review" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100306064610/http://www.ama-assn.org/a

ma/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/medical-peer-review.shtml). Ama-assn.org. Archived
from the original (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/medical-pee
r-review.shtml) on March 6, 2010.
28. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/200
80008301_2008008500.pdf) (PDF). NASA. 2007. SP-610S.
29. Couchman, John R. (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for
Course Correction?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873808). Journal of
Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9–10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462 (https://doi.org/1
0.1369%2F0022155413513462). PMC 3873808 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3
873808). PMID 24217925 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24217925).
30. "The peer review drugs don't work" (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/the-peer-revie
w-drugs-dont-work). Times Higher Education (THE). May 28, 2015. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
31. "Peer review 'works against' early career researchers" (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne
ws/peer-review-works-against-early-career-researchers). Times Higher Education (THE). July 16,
2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
32. JPA Ioannidis (2005) "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
33. Csiszar, Alex (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308.
Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.532..306C).
doi:10.1038/532306a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F532306a). PMID 27111616 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/27111616).
34. Moxham, Noah; Fyfe, Aileen (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review,
1665–1965" (https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65042/3/Peer%20review%20v30%20AAM%20SUBMTD.pdf)
(PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334 (https://doi.org/
10.1017%2FS0018246X17000334).
35. Moore, John (2006). "Does Peer Review Mean the Same to the Public as It Does to Scientists?".
Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05009 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature05009).
36. Ferguson, Cat; Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan (2014). "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam".
Nature. 515 (7528): 480–482. Bibcode:2014Natur.515..480F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
014Natur.515..480F). doi:10.1038/515480a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F515480a).
PMID 25428481 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25428481).
37. Budd, J. M.; Sievert, M.; Schultz, T. R. (1998). "Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction
and Citations to the Publications". JAMA. 280 (3): 296–7. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.296 (https://doi.
org/10.1001%2Fjama.280.3.296). PMID 9676689 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9676689).
38. Smith, Richard (2006). "Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals" (ht
tps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
99 (4): 178–82. doi:10.1177/014107680609900414 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01410768060990
0414). PMC 1420798 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798). PMID 16574968
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16574968).
39. Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017). "What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review" (https://www.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437951). F1000Research. 6: 588.
doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 (https://doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.11369.2).
40. Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C.; Waldner,
François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; b. Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K.; Crick, Tom;
Masuzzo, Paola; Caravaggi, Anthony; Berg, Devin R.; Niemeyer, Kyle E.; Ross-Hellauer, Tony;
Mannheimer, Sara; Rigling, Lillian; Katz, Daniel S.; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Pacheco-
Mendoza, Josmel; Fatima, Nazeefa; Poblet, Marta; Isaakidis, Marios; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin;
Renaut, Sébastien; Madan, Christopher R.; Matthias, Lisa; Nørgaard Kjær, Jesper; O'Donnell,
Daniel Paul; et al. (2017). "A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective on Emergent and Future Innovations
in Peer Review" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5686505). F1000Research. 6:
1151. doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 (https://doi.org/10.12688%2Ff1000research.12037.3).
41. Wong, Victoria S. S.; Avalos, Lauro Nathaniel; Callaham, Michael L. (2019). "Industry Payments
to Physician Journal Editors" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6366761). PLOS
One. 14 (2): e0211495. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1411495W (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019
PLoSO..1411495W). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211495 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.
0211495). PMC 6366761 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6366761).
42. Weiss, Glen J.; Davis, Roger B. (2019). "Discordant Financial Conflicts of Interest Disclosures
between Clinical Trial Conference Abstract and Subsequent Publication" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375255). PeerJ. 7: e6423. doi:10.7717/peerj.6423 (https://doi.org/10.771
7%2Fpeerj.6423). PMC 6375255 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375255).
43. Flaherty, D. K. (2013). "Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies:
Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust". The Annals of
Pharmacotherapy. 47 (7–8): 1081–3. doi:10.1345/aph.1R691 (https://doi.org/10.1345%2Faph.1R
691). PMID 23585648 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23585648).
44. Vanholsbeeck, Marc; Thacker, Paul; Sattler, Susanne; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Rivera-López,
Bárbara S.; Rice, Curt; Nobes, Andy; Masuzzo, Paola; Martin, Ryan; Kramer, Bianca; Havemann,
Johanna; Enkhbayar, Asura; Davila, Jacinto; Crick, Tom; Crane, Harry; Tennant, Jonathan P.
(March 11, 2019). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing" (https://doi.org/10.3390/publicatio
ns7020034). Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi:10.3390/publications7020034 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2
Fpublications7020034).
45. Relman, A. S. (1990). "Peer Review in Scientific Journals--What Good Is It?" (https://www.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1002603). Western Journal of Medicine. 153 (5): 520–22.
PMC 1002603 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1002603). PMID 2260288 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2260288).
46. Bravo, Giangiacomo; Grimaldo, Francisco; López-Iñesta, Emilia; Mehmani, Bahar; Squazzoni,
Flaminio (2019). "The Effect of Publishing Peer Review Reports on Referee Behavior in Five
Scholarly Journals" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338763). Nature
Communications. 10 (1): 322. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10..322B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
019NatCo..10..322B). doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41467-018-
08250-2). PMC 6338763 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338763).
47. Tennant, Jonathan P. (2018). "The State of the Art in Peer Review" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC6140953). FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1093%2Ffemsle%2Ffny204). PMC 6140953 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art
icles/PMC6140953). PMID 30137294 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30137294).
48. Squazzoni, Flaminio; Grimaldo, Francisco; Marušić, Ana (2017). "Publishing: Journals Could
Share Peer-Review Data". Nature. 546 (7658): 352. Bibcode:2017Natur.546Q.352S (https://ui.ad
sabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.546Q.352S). doi:10.1038/546352a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F
546352a). PMID 28617464 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28617464).
49. Allen, Heidi; Boxer, Emma; Cury, Alexandra; Gaston, Thomas; Graf, Chris; Hogan, Ben; Loh,
Stephanie; Wakley, Hannah; Willis, Michael (2018). "What Does Better Peer Review Look like?
Definitions, Essential Areas, and Recommendations for Better Practice".
doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/4MFK2 (https://doi.org/10.17605%2FOSF.IO%2F4MFK2).
50. Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo (2011). "Retracted Science and the Retraction Index" (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237). Infection and Immunity. 79 (10): 3855–3859.
doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11 (https://doi.org/10.1128%2FIAI.05661-11). PMC 3187237 (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237). PMID 21825063 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21
825063).
51. Moylan, Elizabeth C.; Kowalczuk, Maria K. (2016). "Why Articles Are Retracted: A Retrospective
Cross-Sectional Study of Retraction Notices at BioMed Central" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC5168538). BMJ Open. 6 (11): e012047. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012047 (https://
doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmjopen-2016-012047). PMC 5168538 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art
icles/PMC5168538). PMID 27881524 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27881524).
52. Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science".
Science. 349 (6251): aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.
aac4716). hdl:10722/230596 (https://hdl.handle.net/10722%2F230596). PMID 26315443 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26315443).
53. Munafò, Marcus R.; Nosek, Brian A.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Button, Katherine S.; Chambers,
Christopher D.; Percie Du Sert, Nathalie; Simonsohn, Uri; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Ware,
Jennifer J.; Ioannidis, John P. A. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science" (http://dare.uva.
nl/personal/pure/en/publications/a-manifesto-for-reproducible-science(3534b98f-a374-496b-9ad1-
e61539477d66).html). Nature Human Behaviour. 1. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 (https://doi.or
g/10.1038%2Fs41562-016-0021).
54. Fanelli, Daniele (2018). "Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We
Need It To?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5856498). Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2628–2631. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708272114 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1073%2Fpnas.1708272114). PMC 5856498 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C5856498). PMID 29531051 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29531051).
55. Goodman, Steven N. (1994). "Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at
Annals of Internal Medicine". Annals of Internal Medicine. 121 (1): 11–21. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-
121-1-199407010-00003 (https://doi.org/10.7326%2F0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003).
56. Pierson, Charon A. (2018). "Peer review and journal quality". Journal of the American Association
of Nurse Practitioners. 30 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000018 (https://doi.org/10.109
7%2FJXX.0000000000000018). PMID 29757914 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29757914).
57. Caputo, Richard K. (2019). "Peer Review: A Vital Gatekeeping Function and Obligation of
Professional Scholarly Practice". Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services. 100: 6–16. doi:10.1177/1044389418808155 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104438941880
8155).
58. Siler, Kyle; Lee, Kirby; Bero, Lisa (2015). "Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299220). Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. 112 (2): 360–365. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112..360S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2015PNAS..112..360S). doi:10.1073/pnas.1418218112 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.14182
18112). PMC 4299220 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299220).
59. Resnik, David B.; Elmore, Susan A. (2016). "Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of
Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169–
188. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11948-015-9625-5).
60. Bornmann, Lutz (2011). "Scientific Peer Review". Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology. 45: 197–245. doi:10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Faris.201
1.1440450112).
61. "Cargo Cult Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20190824073117/http://calteches.library.caltec
h.edu/51/2/CargoCult.HTM). Caltech Magazine. 1974. Archived from the original (http://Calteche
s.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.HTM) on August 24, 2019.
62. "Untangling Academic Publishing. A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests,
Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research". 26.
63. Priem, Jason; Hemminger, Bradley M. (2012). "Decoupling the Scholarly Journal" (https://www.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319915). Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 6: 19.
doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00019 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffncom.2012.00019). PMC 3319915 (h
ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319915). PMID 22493574 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/22493574).
64. Bowman, Nicholas David; Keene, Justin Robert (2018). "A Layered Framework for Considering
Open Science Practices". Communication Research Reports. 35 (4): 363–372.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F08824096.2018.1513273).
65. McKiernan, E. C.; Bourne, P. E.; Brown, C. T.; Buck, S.; Kenall, A.; Lin, J.; McDougall, D.; Nosek,
B. A.; Ram, K.; Soderberg, C. K.; Spies, J. R.; Thaney, K.; Updegrove, A.; Woo, K. H.; Yarkoni, T.
(2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973366). eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800 (https://doi.org/10.7554%2Fe
Life.16800). PMC 4973366 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973366).
66. "In Peer Review We (Don't) Trust: How Peer Review's Filtering Poses a Systemic Risk to
Science" (https://www.researchers.one/article/2018-09-17).
67. Brembs, Björn (2019). "Reliable Novelty: New Should Not Trump True" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372144). PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.3000117).
68. Stern, Bodo M.; o'Shea, Erin K. (2019). "A Proposal for the Future of Scientific Publishing in the
Life Sciences" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372143). PLOS Biology. 17 (2):
e3000116. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000116 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.3000116).
69. "The RESEARCHERS.ONE Mission" (https://www.researchers.one/article/2018-07-1).
Further reading
Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals :
Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3159-9.
External links
Monument to peer review, Moscow (https://www.nature.com/news/monument-to-peer-review-unv
eiled-in-moscow-1.22060)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_review&oldid=967536602"
This page was last edited on 13 July 2020, at 20:37 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Peer Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peer Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/18/2020 Peer review - Wikipedia

In addition, Australia's Innovative Research Universities group (a coalition of seven comprehensive

Low-end distinctions in articles understandable to all peers

Peer review and trust

Views of peer review

27. "Medical Peer Review" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100306064610/http://www.ama-assn.org/a

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_review&oldid=967536602"

This page was last edited on 13 July 2020, at 20:37 (UTC).

You might also like