Published in

Medicinska Naklada, Zagreb, Croatian Medical Journal, 4(53), p. 386-389

DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals

Journal article published in 2012 by Armen Yuri; Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development Dudley Group Nhs Foundation Trust (A Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham UK) Clinical Research Unit Russell’s Hall Hospital Dudley United Kingdom; a gasparyan@gmail com Gasparyan, Armen Yuri Gasparyan ORCID, George D.; Arthritis Research Uk Epidemiology Unit University of Manchester UK Kitas ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Upload
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Upload
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown
Upload
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.