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?
- Not Just Vitamin D - The Radiation In Sunshine May Be Healthy
- Ignorance Of Math And Physics Is No Excuse
- War On Doping And The Hypocritical Treatment Of Lance Armstrong
- Quantum Cryptography Core Question At The Heart Of Quantum Information Theory Answered?!?
- Mars Lost An Ocean’s Worth Of Water
- Science Debunks Fad Ideas About Autism, But That Doesn't Dissuade Believers
- GMO Soybean Oil Is Healthier Than Organic Or Conventional
- "So many people in Australia nowadays are afraid of any direct contact with the Sun because they..."
- "Nope You can treat for the mites. It is done effectively every day. And the poorly funded research..."
- "And you would not equate McCarthy to Hitler or Stalin? ..."
- "Because anti-communism is indeed on the same shelf as racism and greed. Just another ideology of..."
- "I think I have to agree with you here. I think he changed the culture of doping not doping itself..."
- BPA harms dental enamel in young animals, mimicking human tooth defect
- People with anorexia, body dysmorphic disorder share brain anomalies
- Feeling sleepy? Might be the melatonin
- Chromosomal rearrangement is the key to progress against aggressive infant leukemia
- Infant growth affected by exposure to environmental pollutants