Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
STEPHEN Lock, the eminent, long-time editor of theBritish Medical Journal, has written a fascinating 179-page hardcover book,A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine,1that is useful for all editors of biomedical journals as well as authors and researchers who contribute to those journals. Dr Lock presents a comprehensive analysis of editorial peer review, looking at the merits and defects in the system from the viewpoint of many authorities. His analysis is challenging, making authors, editors, and reviewers think afresh about all the issues surrounding peer review in medical editing. Given the large amount of research and well-informed discussion that is surely needed on this topic, Lock's analysis raises many questions. In tackling the question of "What's wrong with peer review?" he discusses specific components of the process and the outcome by studying the assessors (interchangeably referred to as "reviewers," "referees," and "consultants"). He also discusses authors
Martha J. Carney (Fri,) studied this question.