Letters
Promoting research into peer review No quick fixes
EDITOR, - Anyone who has been involved at either end of the peer review process will be aware problems associated with the system. Richard Smith's editorial talks of the failings of a cost process and reflects some of the concerns that seem to have prompted recent proposals to streamling grant reviewing in both the National Institutes of Health in the United States and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in Britain. Other grant awarding institutions seem likely to follow.The editorial emphasises the need for further interventionist research into peer review. Interestingly, one recent interventionist study of peer review of academic articles concluded that the process was indeed unreliable,2 yet provoked discussion with opinions ranging from agreement to rejection4 and threw up a number of suggestion for reform of the process.
In the end, it is up to the reader to form opinion of an article. None the less,
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- Promoting research into peer review
- R Smith
BMJ 1994 309: 143-144.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
