Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to Annals

Editorials16 December 2003Peer Review: Integral to Science and Indispensable to AnnalsChristine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy Editor and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy Editor, for the EditorsChristine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy Editor and Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy Editor, for the EditorsAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-139-12-200312160-00015 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Despite its limitations, we need it. It is all we have, and it is hard to imagine how we could get along without it.Arnold S. Relman (1)Peer review was the it that Relman, then editor of the The New England Journal of Medicine, referred to in this 1990 quote. Thirteen years later, the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine take the truth of Relman's statement to be self-evident: We cannot imagine getting along without peer review. Annals maintains a database of approximately 10000 potential reviewers. Of these, 1841 individuals reviewed at least 1 manuscript between 1 November 2002 and ...References1. Relman AS. Peer review in scientific journalswhat good is it? West J Med. 1990;153:520-2. [PMID: 2260288] MedlineGoogle Scholar2. Weller AC. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today; 2001. Google Scholar3. Enserink M. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection? Science. 2001;293:2187-8. [PMID: 11567115] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Bad peer reviewers [Editorial]. Nature. 2001; 413:93. [PMID: 11557930] Google Scholar5. Nicholls RD. Peer review under review [Letter]. Science. 1999;286:1853. [PMID: 10610572] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Smith R. When to retract? BMJ. 2003;327:883-4. [PMID: 14563721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Goodman SN, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at the Annals of Internal Medicine . Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21. [PMID: 8198342] LinkGoogle Scholar8. Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine . JAMA. 1994;272:119-21. [PMID: 8015120] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996;348:1480-3. [PMID: 8942777] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Purcell GP, Donovan SL, Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. JAMA. 1998;280:227-8. [PMID: 9676663] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786-90. [PMID: 12038912] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784-6. [PMID: 12038911] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1990;263:1371-6. [PMID: 2304216] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Lock S, Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? JAMA. 1990;263:1341-3. [PMID: 2304211] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994;272:149-51. [PMID: 8015129] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Markland RE. Musings of a well-traveled editor. Decision Sciences. 1989;20:vii-xiii. CrossrefGoogle Scholar17. Bauer SH. Ethics (or lack thereof) of refereeing. Chemical and Engineering News. 1984;62:2-3. Google Scholar18. Davidoff F. Medicine and commerce. 2: the gift [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:572-5. [PMID: 9518405] LinkGoogle Scholar19. Frank E. Editors' requests of reviewers: a study and a proposal. Preventive Medicine. 1996;25:102-4. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA. 1998;280:231-3. [PMID: 9676665] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. Harnad S. The self-archiving initiative. Nature. 2001;410:1024-5. [PMID: 11323640] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. Rennie D, Flanigan D, Smith R, Smith J. Fifth International Congress on peer review and biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:1438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Christine Laine, MD, MPH, Senior Deputy Editor; Cynthia Mulrow, MD, MSc, Deputy EditorCorresponding Author: Customer Service, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byAdvice to authors for avoiding flaws in preparation of original research manuscriptsFinding reviewers: A crisis for journals and their authorsIndividual Ambidexterity and Performance in the Public Sector: A Multilevel AnalysisInnovative studies, eloquent peer reviewing and cultured editing: Academic desires and tangible dreams of an editorEthical dilemmas in journal publicationPeer review in a rapidly evolving publishing landscapeRevisar un artículo para Radiología: quién y cómoInnovation, Regulation, and the FDAResponse to CappellHow to review journal manuscriptsPeer Review Practices in Biomedical Literature: A Time for Change?A Critique of the ACOEM Statement on Mold: Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in the Creation of an "Evidence-Based" StatementEditor's Comments: Why Review? Because Reviewing is a Professional ResponsibilityThe distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factorHow to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journalsInformation Assimilation and Distribution Challenges and Goals for Real and Virtual Journals 16 December 2003Volume 139, Issue 12Page: 1038-1040KeywordsDatabasesForecastingLibrariesMotivationPeer reviewResearch and reporting methodsResearch quality assessmentResearch reporting guidelinesScientistsTreatment guidelines ePublished: 16 December 2003 Issue Published: 16 December 2003 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2003 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...