Peer-to-peer

Tom Jefferson

A look at alternatives to the peer review system suggests it might be the best bet.

Peer review is used as a quality-control mechanism for biomedical literature. Journals with a formal peer-review system are generally higher profile than those without, and peer review is often a pre-condition for journal indexing in biomedical databases such as PubMed. Variants of the current system or complete alternatives have scarcely been explored, as yet. Two years ago, I and my colleagues carried out an exploratory review of complete and partial alternatives to the current editorial peer-review system, both in and outside biomedical sciences. Here I update and summarise our findings.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2006 | Category: 2. Quality & value | Permalink

Charles G. Jennings

What you can’t measure, you can’t manage: the need for quantitative indicators in peer review

Given its importance in steering the global research enterprise, peer review seems under-studied. There is a growing literature on the subject, some of which is highlighted at the quadrennial Peer Review Congress, but for the most part we are still only seeing snapshots. A more systematic approach is needed if we are to understand peer review as it is currently practiced, or to evaluate the pros and cons of any alternative approaches.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2006 | Category: 2. Quality & value | Permalink

Trish Groves

A recipe for good peer review

Improving peer review depends on making its human aspects more humane. Journals need to ask the right reviewers to review the right articles, help them to do it quickly and thoroughly, make them feel happy to sign their reports, thank them, tell them how they did, and encourage wide recognition of what’s too often a thankless task.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 20, 2006 | Category: 2. Quality & value | Permalink

David Ozonoff

Researchers need reviewers to check their stats.

Statistical methods are widely used in many areas of natural science, especially in my field of research, epidemiology. Although statistical procedures are often viewed as a black art, or as a black box, they are not limited to specialists. With today’s computing power and software, researchers can and do use computationally intensive methods of great complexity, often leading to the use of techniques that are more sophisticated and powerful than necessary. Many researchers have trouble interpreting the results, or interpret them incorrectly. Clearly, this is a matter for peer review.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 14, 2006 | Category: 2. Quality & value | Permalink

Joan E. Sieber

Improving the peer-review process relies on understanding its context and culture.

Peer review gets a bad rap these days, and there is much talk that something should be done about it. Scientific societies need to know more about the alleged problems before they try to fix the peer-review process. These problems are often cast as ethical ones: unintended bad consequences of well-meaning editorial processes.

Read more here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 05, 2006 | Category: 2. Quality & value | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)