Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Feature Scientific Research

Problems with peer review

BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1409 (Published 15 March 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1409

Rapid Response:

Despite its problems, peer review is essential.

Mark Henderson's article is informative and stimulating. The time-
honoured process of peer review merits much more discussion than it has
hitherto received. I have had a mixed experience of peer reviews and
reviewers. Many peer reviews have been very helpful, full of learned
comment, and have resulted in revisions and a significant improvement in
the submitted material, but this is not always the case. I recall one peer
review where the comments made it absolutely clear that the reviewer had
not read the manuscript carefully. Careful study is a primary
responsibility of any reviewer. Another reviewer took a key phrase from
the Discussion section, amputated one word so that the meaning was
completely altered, and then proceeded to demolish the altered statement.
One can very well do without such malpractice.

I believe that despite its faults, peer review is essential. The
field of science is immense and even the most accomplished editor cannot
be competent to review every article that is submitted. The editor must
have recourse to expert opinions, hence the review process. The identity
of reviewers should not be made known to the submitting author, because
this can inhibit frank criticism, particularly if the author and the
reviewer are acquainted, and especially if the author is senior to the
reviewer. The review itself should always be made available to the author,
because a competent review can be very helpful to him or her. Ideally, the
identity of the author should not be known to the reviewer, but this is
seldom possible, because a reviewer will by nature be familiar with the
literature and will very likely identify the author or authors. For the
same reason, it can be expected that frequently an author will at least
suspect who wrote the review. Regrettably, it has been amply shown that
peer review does not prevent the publication of shoddy or even fraudulent
work, but it remains the best mechanism that we have for securing the
quality and validity of scientific communications.

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

14 April 2010
Alexander SD Spiers
Professor of Medicine (Retired)
N/A.