The evolution of editorial peer review

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. Typically the reviewer is familiar with the topic area from his own experience performing similar research, and thus can be considered a peer of the author. The peer reviewer may make specific criticisms and may also evaluate the overall importance of the research project, which helps the editors of the journal determine whether to publish the paper and if they do, what revisions to first recommend to the author. This editorial peer review process is distinct from peer review (also called merit review) of research grant applications. The latter is an important step in the process of evaluating research proposals to determine whether they deserve funding. Considering the impact of both types of peer review on medical research, it is surprising that the history of these activities has never been investigated. An historical account of peer review is presented. Editorial peer review began sporadically in the early to mid-nineteenth century as individual journals developed their own policies. Peer review only became standard practice some time after World War II, most likely to better manage the large number of submissions from a wide variety of specialized fields. The process of grant peer reviewing apparently developed independently from editorial peer reviewing. Based on the historical evidence available, peer reviewing developed slowly over time in an uncoordinated manner; even today, journals vary greatly in how they utilize peer review. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

History, Medical publishing, Peer review, Peer review of research grant proposals, Science publishing, Medical writing

---

How to use an article reporting variations in the outcomes of health services

Article Abstract:

Observational studies can still be valuable as long as physicians keep certain facts in mind when evaluating them. The usefulness of observational studies is in the limelight because many researchers are comparing the difference in outcomes between different doctors and hospitals. Because patients cannot be easily randomized in these studies, an observational study is the only way to compare outcomes. Important points to keep in mind are whether the patient groups being compared are similar in every way except for the outcome being measured. Many observational studies use hospital databases of patient statistics, but not all outcomes are captured in these databases. Some researchers augment this data with chart audits or by establishing special registries. The authors of the study should use multivariate analysis to adjust for patient differences. Readers can also compare the outcomes in a low-risk subgroup of patients, who are more likely to be similar.

Medical care

---

Adherence to Published Standards of Reporting

Article Abstract:

Many researchers are not including adequate information in the reports of their clinical trials. A researcher evaluated the reports of a group of authors published between 1985 and 1994, 32 of which were published in German and 89 in English. Adherence to international standards for reporting clinical trials was assessed using an 18-item scale. The average score was 8.4 out of 18. There was little difference in the quality of the German reports and the English reports.

Reports, Clinical trials

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The role of azalide antibiotics in the treatment of chlamydia
• Abstracts: Effects of birthweight and sociodemographic variables on mental development of neonatal intensive care unit survivors
• Abstracts: Endoscopic sclerotherapy in extrahepatic portal hypertension in pregnancy. Cushing's syndrome and pregnancy

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