Research peer review: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett (added links to intro) |
imported>Robert Badgett No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Research peer review''' is part of the editorial process of [[academic journal]]s and [[scientific journal]]s and is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."<ref>{{MeSH|Research peer review}}</ref> | '''Research peer review''' is part of the editorial process of [[academic journal]]s and [[scientific journal]]s and is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."<ref>{{MeSH|Research peer review}}</ref><ref name="pmid8015119">{{cite journal |author=Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN |title=Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality? |journal=JAMA |volume=272 |issue=2 |pages=117–9 |year=1994 |pmid=8015119 |doi=}}</ref> | ||
Peer review improves the quality<ref name="pmid8198342">{{cite journal |author=Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH |title=Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=121 |issue=1 |pages=11–21 |year=1994 |pmid=8198342 |doi=|url=http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/121/1/11}}</ref> and readability<ref name="pmid8015120">{{cite journal |author=Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW |title=Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine |journal=JAMA |volume=272 |issue=2 |pages=119–21 |year=1994 |pmid=8015120 |doi=}}</ref> of manuscripts. | |||
The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).<ref name="urlTimes Higher Education - Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn">{{cite web |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402189&c=1 |title=Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn |author= Zoë Corbyn |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008 |format= |work= |publisher=Times Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=}}</ref> | The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).<ref name="urlTimes Higher Education - Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn">{{cite web |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=402189&c=1 |title=Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn |author= Zoë Corbyn |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008 |format= |work= |publisher=Times Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=}}</ref> | ||
==Problems== | |||
Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.<ref name="pmid8051481">{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Resch KL |title=Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study |journal=J. Lab. Clin. Med. |volume=124 |issue=2 |pages=178–82 |year=1994 |month=August |pmid=8051481 |doi= |url= |accessdate=2008-06-26}}</ref> | |||
==New developments== | |||
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.<ref name="titleExperimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results - Chronicle.com">{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/free/2008/04/2332n.htm |title=Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results |accessdate=2008-04-15 |author=Young JR |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008-04-02 |format= |work= |publisher=The Chronicle of Higher Education |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 13:20, 26 June 2008
Research peer review is part of the editorial process of academic journals and scientific journals and is the "evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions."[1][2]
Peer review improves the quality[3] and readability[4] of manuscripts.
The cost of peer review has been estimated at £165 million (US$326 million).[5]
Problems
Reviewers may have biases in their judgments of manuscripts.[6]
New developments
Recently, blog-based peer-review has been tested, yielding mixed results.[7]
References
- ↑ Anonymous (2024), Research peer review (English). Medical Subject Headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
- ↑ Justice AC, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH, Goodman SN (1994). "Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?". JAMA 272 (2): 117–9. PMID 8015119. [e]
- ↑ Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH (1994). "Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine". Ann. Intern. Med. 121 (1): 11–21. PMID 8198342. [e]
- ↑ Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW (1994). "Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine". JAMA 272 (2): 119–21. PMID 8015120. [e]
- ↑ Zoë Corbyn (2008). Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn. Times Higher Education.
- ↑ Ernst E, Resch KL (August 1994). "Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study". J. Lab. Clin. Med. 124 (2): 178–82. PMID 8051481. Retrieved on 2008-06-26. [e]
- ↑ Young JR (2008-04-02). Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.