Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-zjgpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-28T00:32:00.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What do we know about peer review?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

Simon Wessely
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Editorial
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 1996 , pp. 883 - 886
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

Anon, (1994). Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection. United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Anon, (1995). Peer Review: An Assessment of Recent Developments. Royal Society of London: London.Google Scholar
Bailar, J. (1991). Reliability, fairness, objectivity and other inappropriate goals in peer-review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, 137.Google Scholar
Bailar, J. & Patterson, K. (1985). Journal peer review; the need for a research agenda. New England Journal of Medicine 312, 654–657.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, 119–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (1993). The reliability of peer-review for manuscript and grant submissions – its like déjà-vu all over again – authors response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 401–403.Google Scholar
Cole, S., Cole, J. & Simon, G. (1981). Chances and consensus in peer review. Science 214, 881–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickersin, K., Chann, S., Chalmers, T., Sacks, H. & Smith, H. (1987). Publication bias in randomised controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 8, 343–353.Google Scholar
Dickersin, K., Min, Y. & Meinert, C. (1992). Factors influencing publication of research results. Journal of the American Medical Association 267, 374–378.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, P., Berlin, J., Gopalan, R. & Matthews, D. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337, 867–872.Google Scholar
Ernst, E. & Resch, K. (1994). Reviewer bias – a blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 124, 178–182.Google Scholar
Ernst, E., Saradeth, T. & Resch, K. (1993). Drawbacks of peer review. Nature 363, 296.Google Scholar
Evans, A., McNutt, R., Fletcher, S. & Fletcher, R. (1993). The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8, 422–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feurer, I., Becker, G., Picus, D., Ramirez, E., Darcy, M. & Hicks, M. (1994). Evaluating peer reviews: pilot testing of a grading instrument. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 98–100.Google Scholar
Fisher, M., Friedman, S. & Strauss, B. (1994). The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 143–146.Google Scholar
Garfunkel, J., Ulshen, M., Hamrick, H. & Lawson, E. (1994). Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 137–138.Google Scholar
Gellert, G., Pinmtkin, R., Longmore, M. & Cowie, J. (1995). The death of biomedical journals. British Medical Journal 311, 507–508.Google Scholar
Goldman, R. (1994). The reliability of peer assessments: a meta-analysis. Evaluation and the Health Professions 17, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horrobin, D. (1974). Referees and research administrators: barriers to scientific research? British Medical Journal ii, 216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrobin, D. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1438–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judson, H. (1994). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 92–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiesler, C. (1991). Confusion between reviewer reliability and wise editorial and funding decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, 151–152.Google Scholar
LaPorte, R., Marler, E., Akawaza, S., Sauer, F., Gamboa, C., Shenton, C., Glosser, C., Villasenor, A. & Maclure, M. (1995). The death of the biomedical journals. British Medical Journal 310, 1387–1390.Google Scholar
Lock, D. & Smith, J. (1990). What do peer reviewers do? Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1341–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, S. (1985). A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust: London.Google Scholar
McNutt, R., Evans, A., Fletcher, R. & Fletcher, S. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1371–1376.Google Scholar
Nylenna, M., Riis, P. & Karlsson, Y. (1994). Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: effects of referee characteristics and publication language. Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 149–151.Google Scholar
Peters, D. & Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals; the fate of published articles submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, 187–255.Google Scholar
Pierie, J. & Overbeke, J. (1996). Has any research been done on editorial peer review? A structured review of the literature. Submitted.Google Scholar
Shepherd, M. (1986). Psychological medicine redivivus: concepts and communication. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 79, 639–645.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1994). Promoting research into peer review. British Medical Journal 309, 143–144.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. (1975). On pseudoscience in science: logic in remission and psychiatric diagnoses: a critique of Rosenhan's ‘on being sane in insane places’. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84, 442–452.Google Scholar
Squires, B. (1990). Editor's page; blinding the reviewers. Canadian Medical Association Journal 142, 279.Google Scholar
Stossel, T. (1985). Reviewer status and review quality: experience of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. New England Journal of Medicine 312, 658–659.Google Scholar
Tyrer, P. (1991). Chairman's action; the importance of executive decisions in peer review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, 164–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessely, S., Brugha, T., Cowen, P., Smith, L. & Paykel, E. (1996). Do authors know who refereed their paper? British Medical Journal (in the press).Google Scholar
Yankauer, A. (1991). How blind is blind review? American Journal of Public Health 81, 843–845.Google Scholar