Peer Review is universally used to ensure the quality of scientific research, but the process may not be as reliable as people assume. A new study in PLoS One suggests that the recommendations reviewers may not be much more reliable than a coin toss.
"Peer review provides an important filtering function with the goal of insuring that only the highest quality research is published," said William Tierney, M.D., a Regenstrief Institute investigator and study co-author. "Yet the results of our analysis suggest that reviewers agree on the disposition of manuscripts – accept or reject – at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance. Nevertheless, editors' decisions appear to be significantly influenced by reviewer recommendations."
A total of 2,264 manuscripts submitted to the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) were sent by the editors for external review to two or three reviewers each during the study period. These manuscripts received a total of 5,881 reviews provided by 2,916 reviewers. Twenty-eight percent of all reviews recommended rejection.
However, the journal's overall rejection rate was much higher -- 48 percent overall and 88 percent when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (which occurred with only 7 percent of manuscripts). The rejection rate was 20 percent even when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should be accepted (which occurred with 48 percent of manuscripts).
"We need to better understand and improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors, who make the ultimate publish or not publish decision, recognize the limitations of reviewers' recommendations," said Dr. Tierney, who served as JGIM co-editor-in-chief from 2004-2009.
"Published research is becoming a more and more significant factor in scientific dialogue. Physicians and other researchers are no longer the only readers of medical studies. Patients and their families and friends now regularly access medical literature. This makes the review process even more important."
Citation: Kravitz et al., 'Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal:
Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?', PLoS ONE 5(4): e10072;
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Part II: Bee Deaths And CCD - Flawed Chensheng Lu Harvard Studies Endanger Bees
- Part I: Bee Deaths Mystery Solved? Neonicotinoids (Neonics) May Actually Help Bee Health
- Surveys Show Global Warming Belief Doesn't Change With The Weather
- The BPA Paradox – Too Many Studies?
- Reasons Serious Scientists Should Not Fear The Winnower and other OA Open Review Journals.
- Education: Stop New Age Thinking, Chalk And Talk Might Be The Best Way After All
- Big Data Could Be A Big Problem For Workplace Discrimination Law
- "Where's the beef?..."
- "Your statement is outrageous. What mistake have I made? Please elaborate. The scientists quoted..."
- "I think that is due to the Winnower being in Beta. ..."
- "Jon, I think that with all due respect you have made a serious mistake with this article which..."
- "I am a leftist. I am for a revenue-nuetral carbon tax. Having the CO2 externalities part of the..."
- Lancet article: Afferent's P2X3 inhibitor shows 75 percent reduction in chronic cough frequency
- News from Annals of Internal Medicine Supplement
- Boy moms more social in chimpanzees
- Unmanned underwater vehicle provides first 3-D images of underside of Antarctic sea ice
- CT scans of coral skeletons reveal ocean acidity increases reef erosion