Many of the 37 studies presented cover the same ground as other studies and other congresses: authorship, quality of reports of randomized studies and statistical review, the review process itself, communicating to readers, publication bias, and ethical and confidentiality issues. Many reports concentrated on the better known journals (true for 44 percent of the studies) and focused on process, not outcome measures. The congress was organized such that a 10-minute discussion followed each 10-minute presentation. This arrangement, along with the decision to have no concurrent sessions, facilitated discussions. Much of the discussion centered on the need for disclosure of financial interest or other conflicts of interest, and of reviewers' names. The two invited presentations covered issues always high on the list of peer review discussions: Fiona Godlee, BioMed Central, made a plea for open review (authors and reviewers are identified). In the other, Douglas Altman, British Medical Journal, discussed statistical ...
Peer Review: Do Studies Prove Its Effectiveness?
The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publications, organized by JAMA-The Journal of the American Medical Association and the BMJ Publishing Group, meeting in Barcelona Sept. 14-16, featured three days of presentations of original research on peer review. Despite coming on the heels of the terrorist attacks in the United States, 275 of the 410 registered participants attended. Many scheduled speakers whose flights were canceled were able to E-mail their presentations, w
Written byAnn Weller
| 5 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
5:00
Share
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
