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

Review of a Book

Martha J. Carney; George D. Lundberg, MD

JAMA. 1986;256(2):255.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

STEPHEN Lock, the eminent, long-time editor of the British Medical Journal, has written a fascinating 179-page hardcover book, A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine,¹ that is useful for all editors of biomedical journals as well as authors and researchers who contribute to those journals. Dr Lock presents a comprehensive analysis of editorial peer review, looking at the merits and defects in the system from the viewpoint of many authorities. His analysis is challenging, making authors, editors, and reviewers think afresh about all the issues surrounding peer review in medical editing.

Given the large amount of research and well-informed discussion that is surely needed on this topic, Lock's analysis raises many questions. In tackling the question of "What's wrong with peer review?" he discusses specific components of the process and the outcome by studying the assessors (interchangeably referred to as "reviewers," "referees," and "consultants"). He also discusses authors . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Scientific Information Group, American Medical Association, Chicago.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Scientific Information Group, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Ms Carney).

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