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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alfred Soffer, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1979;139(3):277.

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

The peer review system of editorial review is under fire. Two studies indicated that the frequency of agreement between two referees assessing the same paper is barely above that expected from chance.^1,2 More recently, Commoner³ reported that, "The peer review system appears to be not some minor fault in the housekeeping of science but a threat to its basic purpose—the advancement of knowledge about nature." Has the traditional mechanism of editorial consultation outlived its usefulness? Must drastic changes be introduced if the fundamental concept of peer review is to be retained?

One reason for the torrent of abuse heaped on referees is a fundamental misunderstanding of their basic role. The judgmental aspect of review, that is, recommendation for acceptance or rejection, is but one element of the review process. The submission of a manuscript can be a valuable educational experience for the author whether or not the paper . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PO Box 776 Park Ridge, IL 60068

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