Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to Fix Peer Review: Separating Its Two Functions—Improving Manuscripts and Judging Their Scientific Merit—Would Help

  • Published:
Journal of Child and Family Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite its importance as the ultimate gatekeeper of scientific publication and funding, peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of American Medical Association, 287, 2786–2790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The polictics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 1438–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (2001). Peer review and quality: A dubious connection? Science, 293, 2187–2188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer–review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral Brain Science, 5, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuorscience. Brain, 123, 1964–1969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio

    David Kaplan M.D., Ph.D. (Professor of Pathology)

Authors
  1. David Kaplan M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Kaplan M.D., Ph.D..

Additional information

Reprinted with permission from The Scientist. Originally published in the June 6, 2005 issue of The Scientist (www.the-scientist.com).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaplan, D. How to Fix Peer Review: Separating Its Two Functions—Improving Manuscripts and Judging Their Scientific Merit—Would Help. J Child Fam Stud 14, 321–323 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-6845-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-6845-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation