Affiliation:
1. Departments of Physiology and Biophysics, Nutrition, and Vision Sciences, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama
Abstract
This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Subject
General Medicine,Physiology,Education
Reference68 articles.
1. Allchin D. Reassessing van Helmont D, reassessing history. Bioscience. J Coll Biol Teaching 19: 3–5, 1993.
2. Altman L. When peer review produces unsound science. The New York Times, 2002, p. D6 and F6.
3. Armstrong J. Barriers to scientific contributions: the author's formula. Behav Brain Sci: 197–199, 1982.
4. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation
5. Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a (statistically) significant relationship?
Cited by
189 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献