Peer Review in Health Sciences.

Jefferson, Tom.
London : Wiley, 2003.
1 online resource (383 pages)
2nd ed.

Location Notes Your Loan Policy


Other records:
Peer review.
Medicine -- Research -- Evaluation.
Electronic books.
This book has established itself as the authoritative text on health sciences peer review. Contributions from the world's leading figures discuss the state of peer review, question its role in the currently changing world of electronic journal publishing, and debate where it should go from here. The second edition has been thoroughly revised and new chapters added on qualitative peer review, training, consumers and innovation.
Peer Review in Health Sciences
1: Editorial peer review: its development and rationale
The evolution of editorial peer review
Early history of peer review
Later history of peer review
Institutionalisation of peer review
The modern history of peer review
Electronic review: Prepublication and postpublication peer review
The rationale of peer review
Advantages for the different players
What's wrong with this picture?
New burdens on the peer review system
So many problems, but more and more popular
Democratisation of the process
2: Peer review of grant applications: a systematic review
Is peer review of grant applications fair?
Are peer reviewers really peers?
Is there institutional bias?
Do reviewers help their friends?
Age and getting grants
Gender bias and grant peer review
Other biases
Misuse of confidential information
Reliability of grant peer review
Does peer review of grant applications serve the best interests of science?
Is peer review of grant applications cost effective?
Can peer review of grant applications be improved?
Improving reliability
Tackling cronyism
Other suggestions
Should peer review of grant applications be replaced?
3: The state of evidence: what we know and what we don't know about journal peer review
The quality of the evidence
Themes in peer review research
Primary sources
Social SciSearch
European Science Editing
Additional sources
The International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications, Prague, 1997.
Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Barcelona 2001
Cochrane reviews
Other references
4: The effectiveness of journal peer review
Usual peer review practices
The rationale for peer review practices
Scientific evidence
Ethical rationale
Effectiveness of specific peer review practices
Selecting good reviewers
Number of reviewers
Instructing reviewers
"Blinding" reviewers
Signing reviews
Detecting scientific misconduct
Agreement among reviewers
Overall effects of peer review on manuscript quality
Effects of peer review on the profession
The costs of peer review
Should peer review be standardised?
5: Innovation and peer review
Are manuscripts containing innovative material rejected?
If delay by peer review is the norm, how common is it?
Why might innovations be rejected?
Is peer review the reason for rejection of innovative manuscripts?
Is peer review up to the task of reliably detecting and welcoming important innovations?
What happens when we abandon peer review?
Will this happen again?
Are innovative papers rejected more frequently than non-innovative papers?
What are the consequences?
If the bias against innovation exists, what can we do about it?
New Mechanisms of Publication
6: Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions
Subjectivity and chance
Bad biases
Bias relating to the author
Prestigious authors or institutions
Geographical bias
Gender bias
Minimising biases relating to authors
Bias relating to the paper
Publication bias
What evidence exists for publication bias?
Time to publication
Impact of study design
Authors or journals?
Impact of publication bias on meta-analysis.
Publication bias and industry
Study quality and direction of results
What conclusions can we draw?
What can be done to reduce publication bias?
Non-English language bias
Conflict of interest
7: Misconduct and journal peer review
What are our expectations of peer review?
Can the peer review system detect misconduct?
Cases of misconduct during journal peer review
Plagiarism of ideas and fabrication
Plagiarism of ideas and harmful "review"
Plagiarism of patentable sequence: harmful review
Lesser crimes by reviewers
Editorial misconduct
The role of authors, reviewers, and editors in the prevention of misconduct and inappropriate behaviour
Responsibilities when misconduct is suspected or an allegation has been raised
8: Peer review and the pharmaceutical industry
Methodological bias
Reporting bias
Control of publication
Sponsorship and advertising
Conflict of interest
Remedies and recommendations
Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies
Revision of ICMJE uniform requirements
Moves towards contributorship
Statements of conflict of interest
Other guidelines
Initiatives designed to reduce publication bias
Recommendations for peer reviewed journals in relation to the pharmaceutical industry
9: Small journals and non-English language journals
Small journals
Editorial resources
Quality of manuscripts
Bias in peer review at small journals
The role of small journals
Non-English language journals
Selection of manuscripts
Internationalism vs nationalism
Limited group of referees
Secondary publications
Forms and standard letters
10: How to set up a peer review system
The overall process.
What sort of system?
What do you want of your peer review system?
Recruiting reviewers
Classifying your reviewers' interests
Updating the information
Using a web-based manuscript tracking system
Using your reviewer system
Monitoring the progress of papers
Letters, lists, and statistics
Getting the best out of reviewers
11: The evaluation and training of peer reviewers
The spectrum of peer review
Why reviewer quality matters
Selection and initial assessment of reviewers
Reviewer ratings
Orientation and expectations
Formal training for reviewers
Workshop training
Other forms of structured feedback to reviewers
Are reviewers born, or made?
Recognising the contributions of reviewers
On the matter of editors
The future
12: How to peer review a manuscript
How to peer review a manuscript: practical tips
Do not rush to accept an invitation to peer review a manuscript
Protect enough time to ensure that the deadline is met
Remember that your only source of information will be the report you receive from the journal
Follow a systematic process to review the manuscript
Communicating your comments to editors and authors: writing your report
Follow the instructions of the journal
Summarise the manuscript in a short paragraph before you detail your comments
Always provide constructive criticism
Do not use your review as an opportunity for revenge
Describe any conflict of interest
Acknowledge any help received during the reviewing process
Do not go out of your depth
Label the source of each of your comments explicitly
Decide whether to sign the review or not
Send your comments within the deadline given by the journal
Keep the content of the manuscript confidential.
Ask for feedback from the journal
13: Statistical peer review
Statistics in medical papers
The effect of statistical refereeing
Assessing the statistical quality of a paper
Design: randomised controlled trials
Design aspects of non-randomised studies
Methods of analysis
Reviewer's report
Concluding remarks
14: Peer review of economic submissions
The increased availability of economic submissions
The desirability of good practice in economic evaluation
Quality of economic submissions
The role of peer review
Guidelines and peer review
Discussion and conclusions
15: How to peer review a qualitative manuscript
Relevance of the research question
Appropriateness of the qualitative method
Transparency of research procedures
Soundness of interpretative approach
Detail of the analysis process
Credibility of interpretations
Practical tips for being a good peer reviewer of qualitative manuscripts
Illustrative examples of the peer review of qualitative manuscripts
Future directions
16: Ethical conduct for reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts
Bias and conflict of interest
Ethical questions for research proposals
Ethical considerations in reports of research
Additional considerations
Repetitive publication
17: Non-peer review: consumer involvement in research review
Emergence of "the consumer voice" in health research
Consumer roles in research activities
Consumer review of grant applications
The vexed question of who to involve, and whether participation privileges certain causes or groups
Consumer participation in editorial peer review.
Methods and mechanisms of involving consumers in peer review.
Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.
Local notes:
Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, 2021. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries.
Godlee, Fiona.
Other format:
Print version: Jefferson, Tom Peer Review in Health Sciences