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?

Stephen B. Soumerai, ScD
Harvard Medical School Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1995;273(7):523.

	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.

—In their article, Drs Glantz and Bero¹ suggest that Glantz's initial research applications on tobacco control policies received poor priority scores from two study sections "because their members were not peers." They used this limited experience to launch an unsubstantiated critique of peer review policies. As a member of one of these study sections (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Health Services Research Dissemination [HSRD]), but not a primary or secondary reviewer of the application, I wish to point out some serious flaws and objections that bias the article's conclusions and undermine its credibility.

For the record, the reason the initial application that we reviewed received a 92% priority score had nothing to do with the composition and interests of the study section. The main point, which the authors fail to mention, is that the methods section was only a sketchy description of an interesting, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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