Opening up BMJ peer review
BMJPublished 2 January 1999
Richard Smith
Citations183
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
A body of evidence on peer review is begun, and it illustrates many defects: Peer review is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud.
Keywords
Social SciencesHealth Professions
BMJEffect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
419 Citations1999Susan van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee +3 more
Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.
JAMAEffect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review
286 Citations1998Susan van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee +3 more
Blinding and unmasking made no editorially significant difference to review quality, reviewers' recommendations, or time taken to review.
JAMADoes Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?
278 Citations1998Amy C. Justice, Mildred K. Cho +4 more
Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews, and the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.
PubMedThe effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
114 Citations1990R A McNutt, A T Evans +2 more
BMJEvidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?
95 Citations1999Sandy Goldbeck-Wood
If peer review is so central to the process by which scientific knowledge becomes canonised, it is ironic that science has little to say about whether it works.
The LancetReaders' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
82 Citations1996Jean-Pierre EN Pierie, H C Walvoort +1 more
Evaluations by readers of the Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd indicated significant improvement of published articles after both peer review and editing.
BMJWhat makes a good reviewer of manuscripts?
61 Citations1998Sandy Goldbeck-Wood
What makes a good reviewer, and might you be that person?
JAMAThe Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication
60 Citations1994Drummond Rennie
In this issue of the Journal, 26 of the papers presented at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, held in Chicago, Ill, September 9-11, 1993, are published.