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?

Michael T. Hagley, MD
Akron (Ohio) City Hospital

JAMA. 1990;264(24):3143.

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

To the Editor. —

The article by Dr Horrobin¹ is interesting if seen in the context of the philosophy of science in general. Dr Horrobin argues that the purpose of peer review is more than to maintain quality and includes encouragement of innovation. The peer review system, unfortunately, can impede innovation for a number of reasons. The structure and problems of the peer review system in the medical literature are similar to the description of science in general as described by some of the newer philosophers of science.

In general, the scientific process had been regarded as a rational one until the publication of the work of Kuhn² in 1970. He argued that a scientific discipline is organized around a particular paradigm that gives direction to scientists. Most work in science involves elaboration of a paradigm. Occasionally, however, a novel idea comes along and revolutionizes an area of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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