Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHINGBARCELONA, SPAIN-- Despite its flaws, letting scientists anonymously judge each other's work is widely considered the least bad way to weed out weak manuscripts or research proposals and improve promising ones. But that common wisdom was questioned last weekend at a meeting attended by hundreds of editors of medical journals and academics. In a meta-analysis that surprised many--and that some doubt--researchers found little evidence that peer review actually improves the quality of research papers.
Martin Enserink (Fri,) studied this question.