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?
- Better Brains With Beer
- How A Former Naturopath Can Help Unravel The Trickery of Alternative Medicine
- Brexit, the EU Now Has its Puerto Rico.
- Tidal Disruption Event: Black Hole Eats Star, Beams Signal To Earth
- 9,000 Years: Origin Of Farmed Rice Gets Pushed Back
- The Supreme Court Has Set Back Diversity In Education
- The Magic Number 3? Maybe Not.
- "A better picture might be obtained by reading this article from an Irish journalist based in Russia..."
- "Well, isn’t that just the cat’s whiskers! ..."
- "Was the message to vote Brexit?..."
- "Just about all the photos of Nibiru shared online are lens flares, or offset lens reflections,..."
- "Hello, I am also wondering who is paying you to lie......I have pictures of it and so do all my..."
- ACSH Applauds Media Awareness of the Fentanyl Crisis
- Counting Bites Examined, to Help Decrease Food Intake
- The Safe And Unsafe Nutty Treats For Your Pup
- Mr. Potato Head Needs a New Warning Label!
- Shark Finning is Banned in the US; Banning Trade in Fins May Be Next
- Move Over Zika, It’s Yellow Fever’s Turn
- Should I stay or should I go?
- New cancer immunotherapy drugs linked to arthritis in some patients
- Simulations foresee hordes of colliding black holes in LIGO's future
- Analysis of genetic repeats suggests role for DNA instability in schizophrenia
- Analysis of media reporting reveals new information about snakebites and how and when they occur