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?

David F. Horrobin, DPhil, BM

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1438-1441.

Abstract
Peer review can be performed successfully only if those involved have a clear idea as to its fundamental purpose. Most authors of articles on the subject assume that the purpose of peer review is quality control. This is an inadequate answer. The fundamental purpose of peer review in the biomedical sciences must be consistent with that of medicine itself, to cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always. Peer review must therefore aim to facilitate the introduction into medicine of improved ways of curing, relieving, and comforting patients. The fulfillment of this aim requires both quality control and the encouragement of innovation. If an appropriate balance between the two is lost, then peer review will fail to fulfill its purpose.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1438-1441)

Author Affiliations
From the Efamol Research Institute, Kentville, Canada.

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

Reprint requests to Efamol Research Institute, PO Box 818, Chipman Dr, Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada B4N 4H8 (Dr Horrobin).

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  

Identifying research challenges for occupational and environmental medicine until 2030: an initiative
Erren
Occup. Environ. Med. 2009;66:5-6.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluating the Quality of Radiology Research: What Are the Rules of the Game?
Krestin
Radiology 2008;249:418-424.
FULL TEXT  

Turning Lemons into Lemonade: Where Is the Value in Peer Reviews?
Starbuck
Journal of Management Inquiry 2003;12:344-351.
ABSTRACT  

The reference: more than a buttress of the scientific edifice
Schott
JRSM 2003;96:191-193.
FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Medicine and the Need for Non-Commercial Clinical Research Directed Towards Therapeutic Innovation
Horrobin
Exp. Biol. Med. 2002;227:435-437.
FULL TEXT  

Postpublication Criticism and the Shaping of Clinical Knowledge
Horton
JAMA 2002;287:2843-2847.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Proof versus plausibility: rules of engagement for the struggle to evaluate alternative cancer therapies
Hoffer
CMAJ 2001;164:351-353.
FULL TEXT  

Quality control and validation boundaries in a triple helix of university-industry-government: "Mode 2" and the future of university research
Fujigaki and Leydesdorff
Social Science Information 2000;39:635-655.
ABSTRACT  

Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Rothwell and Martyn
Brain 2000;123:1964-1969.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review
Crigger
Nurs Ethics 1998;5:451-458.
ABSTRACT  

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

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT  

Funding for Patient-Oriented Research: Critical Strain on a Fundamental Linchpin
Williams et al.
JAMA 1997;278:227-231.
ABSTRACT  

From Laboratory to Scientific Literature: The Life and Death of Biomedical Research Results
DIRK
Science Communication 1996;18:3-28.
ABSTRACT  

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

Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1995;16:304-325.
ABSTRACT  

Inappropriate and Appropriate Selection of 'Peers' in Grant Review
Glantz and Bero
JAMA 1994;272:114-116.
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  

More Peering Into Editorial Peer Review
Rennie
JAMA 1993;270:2856-2858.
ABSTRACT  

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

An Author's View: Living with Rejection
Wood
J Hand Surg Eur Vol 1991;16:359-360.