Editorial

And now, evidence based editing

BMJ 1995; 311 doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7009.826 (Published 30 September 1995)
Cite this as: BMJ 1995;311:826

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Richard Smith,
  2. Drummond Rennie
  1. Editor BMJ, London WC1H 9JR
  2. Deputy editor JAMA, Chicago, IL 61610, USA

    The third congress on peer review will be in Prague in September 1997

    Peer review is slow, expensive, prone to bias, corruptible, and possibly anti-innovatory.1 Yet it is central not only to the production of scientific journals but to all of science. Like democracy it may be an imperfect process, but it is better than the alternatives.2 3 4 Or is it? Just as nobody has conducted a randomised controlled trial of cervical screening against placebo so nobody has done such a trial of peer review. Such a trial would probably now be impossible--as it is deemed to be for cervical screening--but editors and others are beginning to research the process of peer review.4 5 6 Most questions about the …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    BMJ most popular