Abstract
The peer review process is a central part of medicine and has become a touchstone of modern evaluation of scientific quality. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been increasingly criticised as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood. A frequent claim is that the process is insufficiently objective and that it is inconsistent in its capacity to assess manuscript quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Horrobin D. Something Rotten at the Core of Science? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2001;22:51–2.
Goodstein D. How Science Works. US Federal Judiciary Reference Manual on Evidence, 2000, pp. 66–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van der Wall, E.E. Peer review under review: room for improvement?. NHJL 17, 187 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03086243
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03086243