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?

Elizabeth Knoll, PhD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1330-1332.

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

IN RECENT years, scientists and editors of scientific journals have often noted how few hard data exist on the workings of editorial peer review. Although pressures from inside and out increasingly encourage journals to be more explicit about their practices and more inclined to question their own habits, there is still a good deal of truth in the sardonic observation made 5 years ago that "the arbiters of rigor, quality, and innovativeness in publishing scientific work do not apply to their own work the standards they apply in judging the work of others."¹ This paradox inspired The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, with its goal of encouraging the systematic and empirical study of journals.

Of course, data and rigorous methods are not enough to make a science. The systematic study of peer review is even more deficient in theory than it is in data. Some . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the University of California Press, Los Angeles.

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

Reprint requests to University of California Press, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1373 (Dr Knoll).

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