The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation
Article Abstract:
Peer review is a process used by scientific and medical journals to help select and revise manuscripts submitted for publication. Journal editors send manuscripts out to independent experts who are knowledgeable about the specific topic areas. These experts, or peer reviewers, evaluate the research methods, results and conclusions and recommend that the articles be accepted, revised or rejected. The purpose of peer review is discussed; while many would say that peer review is for quality control, the author questions this assumption. Quality control is a means to an end, but is not the end itself. Rather, the ultimate purpose of peer review must be the same as the purpose of medicine, which is to comfort, treat, and, when possible, cure patients. To do so, peer review should facilitate communication of potential innovations and improvements in clinical practice. Quality control is important for assuring that invalid or misleading research results are not published, but conveying new methods of treatment must be the ultimate goal of peer review. Journal editors must make a conscious effort to support innovative papers by selecting peer reviewers carefully. Reviewers who are likely to maintain an open mind towards unconventional ideas, and are unlikely to be threatened by the discoveries of others, are appropriate choices. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1990
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Underreporting research is scientific misconduct
Article Abstract:
One form of scientific misconduct is intentional alteration of research data in order to support a false conclusion; this can be characterized as a sin of commission. But sins of omission in scientific research, such as failing to report valid data, may have even greater adverse consequences. The results of many clinical trials, which are conducted to test drugs and other treatments for illnesses, are never published. Other studies are written up without enough detail for the reader to assess their validity. One out of every two clinical trials is reported in a preliminary summary with a detailed follow-up report planned, but the follow-up is never published. The risk involved in these situations is that physicians and other health professionals will lack the information they need for making sound decisions about patient care. It is essential that complete descriptions of all well-conducted clinical trials be published. Underreporting of research findings can be prevented through increased awareness by the original researchers, ethics committees, funding agencies and scientific journal editors. One strategy for encouraging adequate reporting would be to register clinical trials when they begin; the registry would keep records of studies in progress and this would encourage publication of the final results. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1990
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: South Africa's medical leaders seek to assure profession's prestige: WMA readmission seen as significant milestone
- Abstracts: South Africa's medical leaders seek to assure profession's prestige: WMA readmission seen as significant milestone. part 2
- Abstracts: Effect of supplementary feeding on recovery from mild to moderate wasting in preschool children. Nutritional supplementation: effects on child stunting because of diarrhea
- Abstracts: Biomedical information, peer review, and conflict of interest as they influence public health. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress
- Abstracts: Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? What do peer reviewers do? Quotational and reference accuracy in surgical journals: a continuing peer review problem