Measuring the quality of editorial peer review

被引:138
作者
Jefferson, T
Wager, E [1 ]
Davidoff, F
机构
[1] Sideview, Princes Risborough HP27 9DE, England
[2] Hlth Reviews Ltd, Rome, Italy
[3] Annals Internal Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2002年 / 287卷 / 21期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.287.21.2786
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. Methods To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (le, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments). Results Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes. Conclusions Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.
引用
收藏
页码:2786 / 2790
页数:5
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
ALDERSON P, 2001, EDITORIAL PEER REV I
[2]  
Biddle C, 1996, AANA J, V64, P65
[3]  
BINGHAM C, 1999, PEER REV HLTH SCI, P205
[4]   The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study [J].
Bingham, CM ;
Higgins, G ;
Coleman, R ;
Van Der Weyden, MB .
LANCET, 1998, 352 (9126) :441-445
[5]  
BLANK RM, 1991, AM ECON REV, V81, P1041
[6]   Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance [J].
Callaham, ML ;
Wears, RL ;
Waeckerle, JF .
ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 32 (03) :318-322
[7]  
Das Sinha S, 1999, NATL MED J INDIA, V12, P210
[8]   The truth about peer review [J].
Donovan, B .
LEARNED PUBLISHING, 1998, 11 (03) :179-184
[9]   Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals? [J].
Elvik, R .
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 1998, 30 (01) :101-118
[10]  
Ernst E, 1999, Complement Ther Med, V7, P19, DOI 10.1016/S0965-2299(99)80054-5