A slight glance at peer review  

作　　者：Neil D Joshi Kaivalya S Deshpande Christian W Roehmer Dinesh Vyas 

机构地区：[1]Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine [2]Department of Surgery, San Joaquin General Hospital, French Camp

出　　处：《World Journal of Surgical Procedures》2018年第1期1-5,共5页世界外科手术杂志

摘　　要：In order to ensure that the highest quality of literature is published, most journals utilize a peer review process for manuscripts submitted. Although the primary purpose for this process is to filter out "bad science", the process is not perfect. While there is a general consensus among researchers and clinicians that something must be done to improve upon the method for properly vetting manuscripts, there are conflicting opinions on how to best implement new policies. In this paper, we discuss the most well-supported suggestions to improve the process, with the hopes of increasing rigor and reproducibility, ensuring double-blinding, developing set guidelines, offering early training to reviewers, and giving reviewers better feedback and recognition for their work.In order to ensure that the highest quality of literature is published, most journals utilize a peer review process for manuscripts submitted. Although the primary purpose for this process is to filter out "bad science", the process is not perfect. While there is a general consensus among researchers and clinicians that something must be done to improve upon the method for properly vetting manuscripts, there are conflicting opinions on how to best implement new policies. In this paper, we discuss the most well-supported suggestions to improve the process, with the hopes of increasing rigor and reproducibility, ensuring double-blinding, developing set guidelines, offering early training to reviewers, and giving reviewers better feedback and recognition for their work.

关 键 词：PEER review Bias DOUBLE-BLIND method CONFLICT of INTEREST MISCONDUCT 

分 类 号：R[医药卫生]