What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to critically assess the peer review process in scientific publishing and identify its shortcomings.

September 27, 1997BMJOpen Access

Peer review: reform or revolution?

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

This examination reveals deficiencies in peer review, indicating a need for major reform in scientific publishing.

The aim is to critically assess the peer review process in scientific publishing and identify its shortcomings.
Analysis of evidence regarding peer review's efficiency and effectiveness.
Presentation of findings at the third international congress on peer review in Prague.
Evaluation of issues related to randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.
Peer review is expensive, slow, and biased, often failing to detect fraud.
Reports of randomized controlled trials frequently neglect prior trials and lack context.
Systematic reviews often do not define primary outcome measures, leading to significant bias.

R. Smith (1997) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark