pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PubMed

Review

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Richard Smith. J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr.

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Peer review. Peerless review.

    Carpenter RH. Carpenter RH. J R Soc Med. 2006 Aug;99(8):384-5. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900805. J R Soc Med. 2006. PMID: 16893928 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

  • Peer review. Unreliable reviewers.

    Lush B. Lush B. J R Soc Med. 2006 Aug;99(8):385. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900806. J R Soc Med. 2006. PMID: 16893932 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review In Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust, 1985
    1. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287: 2784-6 - PubMed
    1. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280: 237-40 - PubMed
    1. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328: 673. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wennerås C, Wold A. Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387: 341-3 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms