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?

Erdem I. Cantekin, PhD; Timothy W. McGuire, PhD; Robert L. Potter, JD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1427-1430.

Abstract
The peer review process serves a vital role in the publication of biomedical information. When properly functioning, review should focus exclusively on questions of scientific validity and should avoid becoming enmeshed in questions such as "authorization" and "data ownership." We present a case in which the dissenting views of a coinvestigator were suppressed because the principal investigator and grantee institution informed a medical journal that the coinvestigator was not "authorized" to use the data generated by a publicly funded grant and because the editor of a scholarly journal refused to review the dissenting manuscript and to submit that dissent to external reviewers for peer review. The current peer review system, as shown by this case, is unable to embrace dissent within the peer review process and to use dissent to serve scientific truth and the public interest.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1427-1430)

Author Affiliations
From the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Dr Cantekin), the Carnegie Mellon University Graduate School of Industrial Administration (Dr McGuire), and Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Potter (Mr Potter), Pittsburgh, Pa.

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

Reprint requests to Carnegie Mellon University Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 (Dr McGuire).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

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

Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication: Setting the Balance Right
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:300-302.
FULL TEXT  

Editorial Peer Review
Gellert
JAMA 1995;273:114-115.
ABSTRACT  

Antimicrobial Therapy for Otitis Media With Effusion ('Secretory' Otitis Media)
Cantekin et al.
JAMA 1991;266:3309-3317.
ABSTRACT  

The Cantekin Affair
Rennie
JAMA 1991;266:3333-3337.
ABSTRACT  

Peer Review and Dissenting Manuscripts: The Cantekin Case
Myers and Donaldson
JAMA 1990;264:3144-3144.
ABSTRACT