Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82.
doi: 10.1177/014107680609900414.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Richard Smith  1
Affiliations
Review

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Richard Smith. J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr.
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Peer review. Peerless review.
    Carpenter RH. Carpenter RH. J R Soc Med. 2006 Aug;99(8):384-5. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900805. J R Soc Med. 2006. PMID: 16893928 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Peer review. Unreliable reviewers.
    Lush B. Lush B. J R Soc Med. 2006 Aug;99(8):385. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900806. J R Soc Med. 2006. PMID: 16893932 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review In Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust, 1985
    1. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287: 2784-6 - PubMed
    1. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280: 237-40 - PubMed
    1. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328: 673. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wennerås C, Wold A. Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387: 341-3 - PubMed