| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dr. Convection |
 Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12038911&dopt=Abstract
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6.
Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.
Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F.
Health Reviews Ltd., Rome, Italy. toj1@aol.com
CONTEXT: Editorial peer review is widely used to select submissions to
journals for publication and is presumed to improve their usefulness.
Sufficient research on peer review has been published to consider a
synthesis of its effects. METHODS: To examine the evidence of the effects of
editorial peer-review processes in biomedical journals, we conducted
electronic and full-text searches of private and public databases to June
2000 and corresponded with the World Association of Medical Editors,
European Association of Science Editors, Council of Science Editors, and
researchers in the field to locate comparative studies assessing the effects
of any stage of the peer-review process that made some attempt to control
for confounding. Nineteen of 135 identified studies fulfilled our criteria.
Because of the diversity of study questions, methods, and outcomes, we did
not pool results. RESULTS: Nine studies considered the effects of concealing
reviewer/author identity. Four studies suggested that concealing reviewer or
author identity affected review quality (mostly positively); however,
methodological limitations make their findings ambiguous, and other studies'
results were either negative or inconclusive. One study suggested that a
statistical checklist can improve report quality, but another failed to find
an effect of publishing another checklist. One study found no evidence that
training referees improves performance and another showed increased
interrater reliability; both used open designs, making interpretation
difficult. Two studies of how journals communicate with reviewers did not
demonstrate any effect on review quality. One study failed to show reviewer
bias, but the findings may not be generalizable. One nonrandomized study
compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed vs other
journals. Two studies showed that editorial processes make articles more
readable and improve the quality of reporting, but the findings may have
limited generalizability to other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Editorial peer
review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are
uncertain.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, Academic
PMID: 12038911 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BretCahill |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Of course, if it's just a corp. whore shill
tank that dodges the question, "does free
speech precede each and every free trade"
then peer review is irrelevant: you know
it's a scam.
Bret Cahill
Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?
Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.
The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.
Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.
As Milton Friedman might say, if corporate interests pay economists to dodge
issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge issues.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BretCahill |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?
Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.
The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.
Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.
As Milton Friedman might say, if corporate interests pay economists to dodge
issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge issues.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:46 am
|
|