Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review

Abstract

Objective: The manuscript review process is a central part of medicine, but has become increasingly the subject of criticism. A frequent claim is that the process is insufficiently objective and that it is inconsistent in its capacity to assess manuscript quality. Implicit in this is the expectation that manuscript review is, or should be, a 'scientific' process. In this paper I examine and critique this 'scientific imperative'.

Conclusions: Manuscript review, like clinical medicine and (ironically) like science itself, is not and cannot be a 'scientific' process, and this needs to be taken into account both by those carrying out reviews and those who wish to evaluate and improve the manuscript review process.