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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Drummond Rennie, MD; Elizabeth Knoll, PhD; Annette Flanagin, RN, MA

JAMA. 1989;261(5):749.

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

"Peer review" has a variety of meanings for physicians. All physicians are accustomed to surveillance of their use of hospital beds or of the records they keep about the patients in those beds by utilization review and quality assurance committees made up of their peers.

Physicians face yet more peer review when they double as investigators, put their proposals before institutional review boards, and have their grant applications assessed by expert panels of their peers. Finally, the product of all this—the manuscript that embodies their scientific brainchild and carries their hopes of fame and promotion—is subjected by journal editors to yet another round of peer review.

Understandably, it is this last version that tends to interest journal editors the most. However, the workings of the editorial peer review system are of vital concern to every scientist and ultimately to all physicians and patients because all the important advances in science . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Congress Director; Member, Advisory Board; Congress Coordinator

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