Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review

  • Not the Last Word
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

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

  1. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31:145–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Science Editor. 2004;27:190–191.

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Respiratory Journal. CME in the ERJ. Available at: http://erj.ersjournals.com/site/misc/cmeinfo.xhtml. Accessed: July 1, 2013.

  5. Gura T. Peer review unmasked. Nature. 2002;416:258–260.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Horton R. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. MJA. 2000;172:148–149.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wagner E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–2786.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kachewar SG. Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monographs. 2013;11:274–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar MN. The peer reviewer as collaborator’s model for publishing. Learned Publishing. 2010;23:17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Groves T. Seventh international congress on peer review and biomedical publication - call for research. JAMA. 2012;307:726–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Takacs K. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy. 2013;42:287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. The JAMA Network. Announcement: CME for peer reviewers. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:857.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 424 Stemmler Hall, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Joseph Bernstein MD

Authors
  1. Joseph Bernstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Bernstein MD.

Additional information

The author certifies that he, or a member of his immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® or the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®.

About this article

Cite this article

Bernstein, J. Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 3093–3097 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3216-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation