This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John C. Burnham, PhD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1323-1329.

Abstract
Practically no historical accounts of the evolution of peer review exist. Biomedical journals appeared in the 19th century as personal organs, following the model of more general journalism. Journal editors viewed themselves primarily as educators. The practice of editorial peer reviewing did not become general until sometime after World War II. Contrary to common assumption, editorial peer review did not grow out of or interact with grant peer review. Editorial peer review procedures did not spread in an orderly way; they were not developed from editorial boards and passed on from journal to journal. Instead, casual referring out of articles on an individual basis may have occurred at any time, beginning in the early to mid-19th century. Institutionalization of the process, however, took place mostly in the 20th century, either to handle new problems in the numbers of articles submitted or to meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1323-1329)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of History and Psychiatry, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to the Department of History, 230 W 17th Ave, 106 Dulles Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1367 (Dr Burnham).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Is Peer Review Censorship?
Casadevall and Fang
Infect. Immun. 2009;77:1273-1274.
FULL TEXT  

How Does Peer Review Work?
Aaron
radtech 2008;79:553-554.
FULL TEXT  

The ups and downs of peer review
Benos et al.
Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007;31:145-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The impact factor of seven orthopaedic journals: FACTORS INFLUENCING IT
Hakkalamani et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88-B:159-162.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review and Professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine
Emanuel and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2559-2560.
FULL TEXT  

Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology
Bohlin
Social Studies of Science 2004;34:365-391.
ABSTRACT  

The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias
Opthof et al.
Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:339-346.
FULL TEXT  

Priority, Rivalry, and Peer Review
Riggs
J Child Neurol 1995;10:255-256.
 

Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review
Judson
JAMA 1994;272:92-94.
ABSTRACT  

How Well Does a Journal's Peer Review Process Function? A Survey of Authors' Opinions
Sweitzer and Cullen
JAMA 1994;272:152-153.
ABSTRACT  

Electronic Journals and Duplicate Publication Is a Byte a Word?
Flanagin et al.
JAMA 1992;267:2374-2374.
ABSTRACT  

The Communities of Scientists and Journal Peer Review
Knoll
JAMA 1990;263:1330-1332.
ABSTRACT