Without peer review The BMJ could not survive. The journal uses reviewers to help assess the quality and usefulness of about 8000 papers per year. In early 2014, as one of a number of changes designed to make the journal more patient-centered, The BMJ announced that it would recruit patients to […]
Tag: peer review
Richard Smith: More on the uselessness of peer review
I know I’m becoming a bore with all this raving against prepublication peer review, but like all true bores I’m charging on regardless. And I’m fired up by the experience I’ve had in the past few minutes. Unsurprisingly, I’m a hypocrite as well as a bore, and despite my protestations I do a fair bit […]
Richard Smith: A woeful tale of the uselessness of peer review
Let me tell you a sad tale of wasted time and effort that illustrates clearly for me why it’s time to abandon prepublication peer review. It’s the tale of an important paper that argues that we can screen for risk of cardiovascular disease using simply age. (1) I’ve already posted a blog on the implications […]
Liz Wager: Are journal editors like used car salesmen?
Yesterday, I gave evidence to a UK parliamentary inquiry into peer review (as did Fiona Godlee). (The session can be viewed here) Before the session I tried to think of an analogy for peer review that I could use to explain its usefulness, but also its variety and imperfections, to the MPs. Inspiration often comes […]
Elizabeth Loder: Who gets to be an author?
Elizabeth Loder reports on a panel discussion held at the International Publication Planning Association meeting in St Louis, Missouri. […]
Andrew Burd: Naughty editor, bad editor
I have been the human guardian of both cats and dogs over the years. I cannot call myself either a cat person or a dog person. They have such different personalities. Cats are free spirits but are also wonderfully self-indulgent and will be happily stroked for hours. Dogs are more keen on activity and many […]
Richard Smith: Twitter to replace peer review?
An interesting article in Nature gives what may be a glimpse of the future of scientific discourse by telling stories of how social media have done a much better and faster job than traditional prepublication review. Science recently published a paper in which researchers claimed to be able to predict human longevity with 77% accuracy. The […]
Liz Wager on stem cell scientists’ criticisms of peer review
Stem cell researchers from some major international institutions have written an open letter to journal editors complaining that they have received unreasonable and obstructive reviews (Euro Stem Cell) […]
Siddhartha Yadav on optimism in South Asia for health research
Last week was a research-filled week for me. Two biomedical papers to review in the early part of the week and the South Asian Forum for Health Research (SAFHeR) meeting towards the end. Could not ask for more. […]
Liz Wager: If comment is cheap why is peer review so expensive?
As you know (since you are reading this), I blog, albeit sporadically. I do not Tweet (yet) but I’m fascinated by the frenzy of twittering and the explosion of opportunities to launch one’s opinions into cyberspace. […]