Abstract
Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption.
References
Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of American Medical Association, 287, 2786–2790.
Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The polictics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 1438–1441.
Enserink, M. (2001). Peer review and quality: A dubious connection? Science, 293, 2187–2188.
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer–review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Science, 5, 187–196.
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuorscience. Brain, 123, 1964–1969.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Reprinted with permission from The Scientist. Originally published in the June 6, 2005 issue of The Scientist (www.the-scientist.com).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaplan, D. How to Fix Peer Review: Separating Its Two Functions—Improving Manuscripts and Judging Their Scientific Merit—Would Help. J Child Fam Stud 14, 321–323 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-6845-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-6845-3