The importance of peer review

  • Sílvia Álvares Editor-in-Chief of Nascer e Crescer – Birth and Growth Medical Journal; Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Centro Materno-Infantil do Norte, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto; Clinical & Experimental Human Genomics, Unit for Multidisciplinary Research in Biomedicine, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar

References

1. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer Review in Scientific Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide EJIFCC. 2014; 25:227-43.

2. Zaharie MA, Seeber M. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics. 2018; 117:1587–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-613.

3. Cho YG, Park HA. Peer review process in medical journals. Korean J Fam Med. 2013; 34:372-6.

4. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell M, Hirsch JA. Medical Journal Peer Review: Process and Bias Pain Physician. 2015; 18:E1-E14.

5. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals J R Soc Med. 2006; 99:178–82.

6. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:2.

7. Ware M. Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. PRC Summary Papers. 2008; 4:4-20.

8. Rowley JR, Sbaffi L. Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline. Journal of Information Science. 2017; 44:644–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517740821.

9. Blum K, Jacobs W, Modestino EJ, DiNubile N, Baron D, McLaughlin T, et al. Insurance companies fighting the peer review empire without any validity: The case for addiction and pain modalities in the face of an American drug epidemic. SEJ Surgery and Pain. 2018; 1:1–11.

10. Gannon F. The essential role of peer review. EMBO Rep. 2001; 2:743.

11. Allen H, Cury A, Gaston T , Graf C, Wakley H, Willis M. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1222.

12. Jackson L, Peters MA, Benade L, Devine N, Arndt S, Forster D, et al. Is peer review in academic publishing still working? Open Review of Educational Research 2018; 5:95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139.

13. Stahel P, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Medicine. 2014; 12:179-82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.

14. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014; 12:128. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z.
Published
2019-04-10
Section
Editorial