This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2559-2560.

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

It was almost like an essential initiation rite when, as the new team of editors arrived at the Archives of Internal Medicine,¹ one of our priority engagements was with the peer reviewer process. This engagement has become lasting and compelling. Why? Because peer reviewers form one of the larger, load-bearing pillars on which the medical profession’s edifice rests. And, for most of the medical publishing world, that pillar is not in the best of shape.^2-4 For the ARCHIVES, we have been seeking and pursuing you, the profession’s peer reviewers. We intend to continue cultivating our relationships with you as we work with you to build up this pillar.

We believe that the most important feature of the peer review role that garners its special standing is this: it provides the self-regulation component that is the sine qua non of medical professionalism. In medical peer review journals, peer . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Linda L. Emanuel, MD, PhD; Philip Greenland, MD, Editor