nach oben

Breast Cancer Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2010 | Short communication

Classical peer review: an empty gun

verfasst von: Richard Smith

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research | Sonderheft 4/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review that have been held every four years since 1989. Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws. …

Smith R: Enter the 'liquid journal', quoting F Casati. [https://doi.org/blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/08/05/richard-smith-enter-the-%E2%80%9Cliquid-journal%E2%80%9D/]

Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, MR000016-

Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C: Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, MR000003-

Ioannidis JPA: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005, 2: e124-10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.CrossRef

Haynes RB: Where's the meat in clinical journals?. ACP J Club. 1993, 119: A22-A23.

Altman DG: Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2765–2767. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2765.CrossRef

Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998, 351: 637–641. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.CrossRef

Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz MB, Hawkey CJ, Hochberg MC, Kvien TK, Schnitzer TJ, VIGOR Study Group: Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 1520–1528,. 10.1056/NEJM200011233432103.CrossRef

Altman DG: The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994, 308: 283–284.CrossRef

10.

Research Information Network: Activities, costs, and funding flows in the scolarly communications system. 2008, [https://doi.org/www.rin.ac.uk/our-%20work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarly-commu]

11.

Lock S: A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. 1985, London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust

12.

Rothwell PM, Martyn C: Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience - is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain. 2000, 123: 1964–1969. 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.CrossRef

13.

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R: What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. J R Soc Med. 2008, 101: 507–514. 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.CrossRef

14.

Peters D, Ceci S: Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982, 5: 187–255. 10.1017/S0140525X00011183.CrossRef

15.

Horrobin DF: The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990, 263: 1438–1441. 10.1001/jama.263.10.1438.CrossRef

16.

Rennie D, Gunsalus CK: Regulations on scinetific misconduct: lessons from the US experience. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Edited by: Lock S, Wells F, Farthing M. 2001, London: BMJ Books, 13–31. 3

17.

Smith R: Peer Review: a Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. The Trouble With Medical Journals. 2006, London: RSM Press

18.

Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006, 99: 178–182. 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.CrossRef

19.

Leadbeater C: We Think: Mass Innovation Not Mass Production: the Power of Mass Creativity. 2008, London: Profile

20.

Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O: Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: e201-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.CrossRef

Titel: Classical peer review: an empty gun
verfasst von: Richard Smith
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2010
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research / Ausgabe Sonderheft 4/2010
Elektronische ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

25.04.2024 | Nierenkarzinom | Nachrichten

Springer Medizin

Classical peer review: an empty gun

Excerpt

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 4/2010

Predictive and prognostic factors

The globalisation of breast cancer

Deciding priorities in Pharma

Do selective serotonin receptor inhibitor antidepressants reduce tamoxifen's effectiveness and increase the risk of death from breast cancer?

Controversies in Breast Cancer 2010

Molecular profiling currently offers no more than tumour morphology and basic immunohistochemistry

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Bei Senioren mit Prostatakarzinom auf Anämie achten!

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Update Onkologie