This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Online Table  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (31)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Tom Jefferson, MD; Elizabeth Wager, MA; Frank Davidoff, MD

JAMA. 2002;287:2786-2790.

Context  The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes.

Methods  To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (ie, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments).

Results  Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes.

Conclusions  Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.

Author Affiliations: Health Reviews Ltd, Rome, Italy (Dr Jefferson); Sideview, Princes Risborough, England (Ms Wager); Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Davidoff).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     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  

Kudos
Reider
Am J Sports Med 2008;36:2287-2288.
FULL TEXT  

Publication in the AJR: Critical Interactions among Authors, Reviewers, and Section Editors
Berquist
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:1291-1292.
FULL TEXT  

A case for deliberation in response to hormesis research
Elliott
Hum Exp Toxicol 2008;27:529-538.
ABSTRACT  

Attenti Alle Bufale ('Beware of Red Herrings'), or, How to Make Evidence-Based Medicine Work for You
Jefferson et al.
JRSM 2006;99:625-627.
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  

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  

No time limit on Medicare hospice benefit.
Harmon et al.
AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 2005;22:93-93.
 

Improving peer review: who's responsible?
Davidoff
BMJ 2004;328:657-658.
FULL TEXT  

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.
 

Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT