Rapid Responses to:

EDUCATION AND DEBATE: Sandra Goldbeck-Wood Evidence on peer reviewscientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 1999; 318: 44-45 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Peer review

Alistair Fielder   (4 February 1999)

Peer review 4 February 1999
Alistair Fielder Send response to journal: Re: Peer review	Sir - The current debate on peer review is a welcome drive towards openness. The peer review process includes identifying what is scientifically reliable, relevant and appropriate to the journal, and "other matters of intellectual quality control".1 We are not surprised therefore that the ideal reviewer is the young epidemiologist or statistician, but we are disturbed to learn that members of editorial boards generally fall short of this ideal. The discrepancy between these two groups of reviewers is intriguing and may harbour an important clue - perhaps they look for different things, each of which might be germane. The young ideal reviewer is the best qualified to comment on study design and analysis, and manuscript construction. But how, not being fully acquainted with the field, can this individual possibly evaluate specialist content, scientific importance and innovation? Surely this can only be judged by the specialist, or the experienced editor, who hopefully is better placed to spot a new idea. We must not forget that while the peer review process must whittle down and ensure rigour, it also has a vital creative element. This last is difficult to judge and there is, as yet, no robust way of evaluating this component.2 So, until there is, we urge you to keep young epidemiologists/statisticians, editors and experts all on the payroll. You have convinced us that anonymity does not improve the quality of manuscript reviews.3 But what of grant applications? Different issues arise, including intense competition for funds. It is fundamental that applications from those on and off the grant awarding committee have the same opportunity. This is facilitated by having the errors and queries of reviewers corrected and clarified respectively before the grant committee meets. Perhaps in this situation interaction might be more important than anonymity, because it is a widely held anecdotal belief amongst grant awarding bodies that unmasking results in bland reviews which help no one. Naturally charities and other bodies could be concerned that such interaction could be difficult to limit and generate a huge administrative burden. In our limited experience this is not so; it facilitates the working of the committee and saves time.4 Input is much appreciated by the applicants, as it injects a positive and interactive component into peer review which we are frequently reminded is at the very heart of science. Alistair Fielder Hannah Vinyard Prevention of Blindness Sub-Committee Royal National Institute for the Blind 224 Great Portland Street London W1N 6AA References 1. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 1999: 318: 44-5. 2. Black N, van Rooyen S. Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280:231-233. 3. Smith R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999; 318: 4-5. 4. Fielder A, Vinyard H. Peer review of grant applications. Lancet 1998;352: 1063.