Does Editorial Peer Review Work?
Authors: Stephen Lock
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)

Editorials1 July 1994Does Editorial Peer Review Work?Stephen Lock, MDStephen Lock, MDWellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, United Kingdom, NW1 2BE.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00012 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail For an activity seemingly so important for science, editorial peer review has received scant research. Introduced with the first two scientific journals [1], it did not become universal until after World War II—yet, only in the past 15 years have some data become available for the debate between those who see it as “the linchpin of science” or merely “the informed prejudices of old men.” In this issue, Goodman and coworkers [2] give a preliminary answer to an important unanswered question: Does peer review improve manuscript quality? Jointly, review and the subsequent editing did raise quality, they found, although their ...References1. Zuckerman H, Merton RK. Patterns of evolution in science: institutionalisation, structure and function of the referee system. Minerva. 1971; 9:66-100. Google Scholar2. Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121:11-21. Google Scholar3. Horrobin DF. Referees and research administrators; barriers to scientific research? Br Med J. 1974; 2:216-8. Google Scholar4. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990; 263:1438-41. Google Scholar5. Peters DP, Ceci SJ. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982; 5:187-95. Google Scholar6. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990; 263:1371-6. Google Scholar7. Yankauer A. Peering at peer review. CBE Views. 1985; 8:7-10. Google Scholar8. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1986. Google Scholar9. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA. 1990; 263:1355-7. Google Scholar10. Relman AS. Are journals really quality filters? In: Goffman W, Bruer JT, Warren KS, eds. Research on Selected Information Systems. New York: Rockefeller Foundation; 1980. Google Scholar11. De Solla Price D. The development and structure of the biomedical literature. In: Warren KS, ed. Coping with the Biomedical Literature: A Primer for the Scientist and the Clinician. New York: Praeger; 1981; 3-16. Google Scholar12. Lock S. Medical journals. In: Scott RB, Walton J, Beeson P, eds. The Oxford Companion to Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986. Google Scholar13. Pendlebury D. Science's go-go growth: has it started to slow? New Scientist. 1986; (7 August):14, 16. Google Scholar14. Warren KS, Goffman W. The ecology of the medical literatures. Am J Med Sci. 1972; 263:267-73. Google Scholar15. Hamilton DP. Research papers: who's uncited now? Science. 1991; 251:25. Google Scholar16. Williamson JW, Goldschmidt PG, Colton T. The quality of medical literature: an analysis of validation assessments. In: Bailar JC, Mosteller F. Medical Uses of Statistics. Waltham, Mass: NEJM Books; 1986. Google Scholar17. Huth EJ. The information explosion. Bull NY Acad Med. 1989; 65:647-61. Google Scholar18. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good reviews. Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Chicago: American Medical Association; 1993:11. Google Scholar19. Batshaw ML, Plotnick LP, Petty BG, Woolf PK, Mellits ED. Academic promotion at a medical school. Experience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318:741-7. Google Scholar20. Anderson C. Authorship. Writer's cramp. Nature. 1992; 355:101. Google Scholar21. Stossel TP. Speed: an essay on biomedical communication. N Engl J Med. 1985; 313:123-6. Google Scholar22. Angell M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 104:261-2. Google Scholar23. Harvard Medical School. Guidelines for investigators in scientific research. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University; 1988. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, United Kingdom, NW1 2BE.Corresponding Author: Stephen Lock, MD, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, United Kingdom. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoManuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine Steven N. Goodman , Jesse Berlin , Suzanne W. Fletcher , and Robert H. Fletcher Metrics Cited byQuality Assessment and Certification in Open Scholarly Publishing and Inspiration for MOOC CredentialingScientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United StatesJournal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citationOn Peer ReviewQuality Assessment and Certification in Open Scholarly Publishing and Inspiration for MOOC CredentialingOn peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvementAssessment for Open-Learning CulturesPublishingTo publish or perish: How to review a manuscriptTo publish or perish: How to review a manuscriptQuality of manuscript reviews in nursing researchBecome a Peer ReviewerA Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical ResearchThe ups and downs of peer reviewStatistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized TrialFinding Truth from the Medical Literature: How to Critically Evaluate an ArticleEditorial—The peer-review system: prospects and challengesWhy Are (Some) Conflicts of Interest in Medicine So Uniquely Vexing?A nuestros evaluadores, con amorKnowledge Resources: Finding Answers to Primary Care QuestionsManuscript Peer Review?A Guide for Health Care ProfessionalsHow to write a peer reviewMore attention to the problem of research misconductHow to “Peer Review” a Medical Journal ManuscriptPeer Review, Authorship, Ethics, and Conflict of InterestScientific publications from departments of clinical physiology and nuclear medicine in Denmark. A bibliometric analysis of ‘impact’ in the years 1989–1994Guardians of the lampThe editorial journey: initial impressions 1 July 1994Volume 121, Issue 1Page: 60-61KeywordsLibrariesPeer reviewPrevention, policy, and public healthQuestionnairesRacial and ethnic issuesRegression analysisResearch grantsResearch quality assessmentScientistsSystems biology Issue Published: 1 July 1994 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1994 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...