Nov 28, 2019
Peer review prior to publication of medical data dates back to
the 9th century CE, but has only really gained steam in the past 70
or 80 years. Ideally, peer review would serve as an initial filter
for data that enters a permanent public scientific record. But peer
review is not without flaws. In the second installment of the
BrainWaves segment, “It’s not over yet…”, we discuss publication as
a potential source of bias, and highlight the reasons why it should
not be the final step of the peer review process.
Produced by James E. Siegler. Music courtesy of Cullah, Lee
Rosevere, John Bartmann, Kevin McLeod, and Jon Watts. Sound effects
by Mike Koenig and Daniel Simion. BrainWaves' podcasts and online
content are intended for medical education only and should not be
used for clinical decision making. Be sure to follow us on Twitter
@brainwavesaudio for the latest updates to the podcast.
- Bingham C. Peer review on the Internet: A better class of
conversation. Lancet. 1998;351:S10-14.
- Godlee F, Gale CR and Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer
review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports:
a randomized controlled trial. JAMA : the journal of the
American Medical Association. 1998;280:237-40.
- Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E and Davidoff F. Effects of
editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA : the journal
of the American Medical Association. 2002;287:2784-6.
- Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S and Davidoff F. Editorial
peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical
studies. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
- Ware M. Peer review: Benefits, perspectives, and
alternatives: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008.
- Mandavilli A. Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature.
- Haffar S, Bazerbachi F and Murad MH. Peer Review Bias: A
Critical Review. Mayo Clinic proceedings.