Biomedical information, peer review, and conflict of interest as they influence public health

Article Abstract:

Peer review is the main quality-control mechanism in medical and scientific publishing. In the process of peer review, a research paper that has been submitted to a journal for publication is reviewed by an independent expert in the field. This expert evaluates the validity, reliability, and importance of the results and recommends that the manuscript either be accepted, revised, or rejected. The peer review process has failed to maintain the quality of research reports in some recent cases, and this is detrimental to the understanding of scientific issues as well as to the public's opinion of the scientific community. It is time for a thorough examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the peer review process. The public has a right to learn the results of such an evaluation because peer review is closely related to the expenditure of public funds for research activities. A case is discussed in which the peer review process became inappropriately involved in issues of "data ownership". A coinvestigator disagreed with the conclusions of the principal investigator. The latter researcher suppressed the opinions of the former and told the medical journal that the coinvestigator was not authorized to utilize the research results. In response, the journal editor ignored the dissenting views of the coinvestigator and also failed to submit them to the peer reviewers. This case demonstrates that dissent among authors, editors and reviewers may cause the peer review system to break down. It is vital that strategies for focusing on scientific truths, rather than data ownership, be developed for such situations. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Case studies

---

Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress

Article Abstract:

Peer review is the evaluation of a research paper that has been submitted to a medical or scientific journal for publication. Typically the reviewer is familiar with the topic area from his own experience performing research in the same field, and thus can be considered a peer of the author. The peer reviewer may make specific criticisms and evaluate the overall importance of the research project. Medical and scientific journal editors tend to rely heavily on the assessment of the peer reviewer in choosing articles for publication and recommending revisions to the authors. Despite the importance of peer review in the process of scientific publication, and the vital nature of publication to all scientific disciplines, little research has been done on the process of peer review itself. While editorials have frequently been written to express opinions about the process, only minimal amounts of data have ever been collected concerning how peer review works as a quality-control mechanism. In May 1989, the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication was held. For the prior three years, research on peer review was promoted and original research submissions were solicited. About 300 people, including journal editors, scientists, librarians and publishers, attended the conference to learn about 35 research projects concerning the peer review process. Various issues were raised, but this first conference only scratched the surface of the topic of peer review. The March 9, 1990 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association contains many of the papers presented at the conference. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Research

---

Editorial peer review in US medical journals

Article Abstract:

Peer review is the process by which a scientific paper that has been submitted to a journal for publication is reviewed by an independent expert in the field. The peer reviewer may make specific criticisms and also evaluate the overall importance of the research project, which helps the editors of the journal determine whether to publish the paper and if so, what revisions to first recommend to the author. Few studies or commentaries have been written about the peer review process, and those few have focused on the well-known, general medical journals. No study has compared peer review in these journals with peer review in the less widely circulated, specialized medical journals. Editors from both types of journals were surveyed about the practice of editorial peer review at their respective publications. The results showed that these two types of journals did differ in how peer review was performed. The well-known, general journals relied less on peer review and more on their editorial staff than the specialized journals. The former group of editors used reviewers as consultants but tended to make key decisions on their own, whereas the latter group stated that their reviewers were used as consultants but their opinions were actually relied upon more heavily than that would suggest. The basic peer review procedures were similar, however, for the two groups of journals. For example, the number of reviewers used per manuscript and the percentage of manuscripts reviewed were equivalent. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Analysis

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia
• Abstracts: Medical student abuse; incidence, severity, and significance. A pilot study of medical student 'abuse': student perceptions of mistreatment and misconduct in medical school.'
• Abstracts: Bacterial vaginosis: current review with indications for asymptomatic therapy. Statistical evaluation of diagnostic criteria for bacterial vaginosis
• Abstracts: Maternal serum alpha2-macroglobulin and fetal growth retardation

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.