 |
|
Effects of Editorial Peer Review
A Systematic Review
Tom Jefferson, MD;
Philip Alderson, MBChB;
Elizabeth Wager, MA;
Frank Davidoff, MD
JAMA. 2002;287:2784-2786.
Context Editorial peer review is widely used to select submissions to journals for publication and is presumed to improve their usefulness. Sufficient research on peer review has been published to consider a synthesis of its effects.
Methods To examine the evidence of the effects of editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals, we conducted electronic and full-text searches of private and public databases to June 2000 and corresponded with the World Association of Medical Editors, European Association of Science Editors, Council of Science Editors, and researchers in the field to locate comparative studies assessing the effects of any stage of the peer-review process that made some attempt to control for confounding. Nineteen of 135 identified studies fulfilled our criteria. Because of the diversity of study questions, methods, and outcomes, we did not pool results.
Results Nine studies considered the effects of concealing reviewer/author identity. Four studies suggested that concealing reviewer or author identity affected review quality (mostly positively); however, methodological limitations make their findings ambiguous, and other studies' results were either negative or inconclusive. One study suggested that a statistical checklist can improve report quality, but another failed to find an effect of publishing another checklist. One study found no evidence that training referees improves performance and another showed increased interrater reliability; both used open designs, making interpretation difficult. Two studies of how journals communicate with reviewers did not demonstrate any effect on review quality. One study failed to show reviewer bias, but the findings may not be generalizable. One nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed vs other journals. Two studies showed that editorial processes make articles more readable and improve the quality of reporting, but the findings may have limited generalizability to other journals.
Conclusions Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain.
Author Affiliations: Health Reviews Ltd, Rome, Italy (Dr Jefferson); UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, England (Dr Alderson); Sideview, Princes Risborough, England (Ms Wager); and Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Davidoff).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
June 5, 2002
JAMA. 2002;287(21):2875-2876.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Balancing Uncertain Risks and Benefits in Human Subjects Research
Barke
Science Technology Human Values 2009;34:337-364.
ABSTRACT
Medical editors and trial reporting: A betrayal of patient care
Wager and Abbasi
JRSM 2009;102:4-5.
FULL TEXT
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
Schroter et al.
JRSM 2008;101:507-514.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Professionalization Of Editing
Nordstrom
Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:890-891.
FULL TEXT
Response to Scientific journals are 'faith based': is there a science behind peer review?
Schroter
JRSM 2007;100:117-118.
FULL TEXT
Scientific Journals are 'faith based': is there science behind Peer review?
Linkov et al.
JRSM 2006;99:596-598.
FULL TEXT
Where Should Family Medicine Papers be Published--Following the Impact Factor?
Peleg and Shvartzman
J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:633-636.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reinventing the Biomedical Journal
Smith
J. Neurosci. 2006;26:9837-9838.
FULL TEXT
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
Smith
JRSM 2006;99:178-182.
FULL TEXT
Peer Review and Professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine
Emanuel and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2559-2560.
FULL TEXT
What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective
Savulescu and Viens
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:591-597.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1)
Krleza-Jeric et al.
BMJ 2005;330:956-958.
FULL TEXT
No time limit on Medicare hospice benefit.
Harmon et al.
AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 2005;22:93-93.
Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals
Laine et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:1038-1040.
FULL TEXT
Our editorial process - some experiences and reflections
Emmelin and Wall
Scand J Public Health 2003;31:161-168.
The Peer Review Process (aka Peer Reviewology)
Yucha
Biol Res Nurs 2002;4:71-72.
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.
Rennie
JAMA 2002;287:2759-2760.
FULL TEXT
Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
