Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 4/2010

01-12-2010 | Short communication

Classical peer review: an empty gun

Author: Richard Smith

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Special Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Excerpt

If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review that have been held every four years since 1989. Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws. …
Literature
1.
2.
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, MR000016-
3.
Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C: Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, MR000003-
4.
Ioannidis JPA: Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005, 2: e124-10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.CrossRef
5.
Haynes RB: Where's the meat in clinical journals?. ACP J Club. 1993, 119: A22-A23.
6.
Altman DG: Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2765–2767. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2765.CrossRef
7.
Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998, 351: 637–641. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.CrossRef
8.
Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz MB, Hawkey CJ, Hochberg MC, Kvien TK, Schnitzer TJ, VIGOR Study Group: Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 1520–1528,. 10.1056/NEJM200011233432103.CrossRef
9.
Altman DG: The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994, 308: 283–284.CrossRef
10.
11.
Lock S: A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. 1985, London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust
12.
Rothwell PM, Martyn C: Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience - is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain. 2000, 123: 1964–1969. 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.CrossRef
13.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R: What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. J R Soc Med. 2008, 101: 507–514. 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.CrossRef
14.
Peters D, Ceci S: Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci. 1982, 5: 187–255. 10.1017/S0140525X00011183.CrossRef
15.
Horrobin DF: The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA. 1990, 263: 1438–1441. 10.1001/jama.263.10.1438.CrossRef
16.
Rennie D, Gunsalus CK: Regulations on scinetific misconduct: lessons from the US experience. Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research. Edited by: Lock S, Wells F, Farthing M. 2001, London: BMJ Books, 13–31. 3
17.
Smith R: Peer Review: a Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. The Trouble With Medical Journals. 2006, London: RSM Press
18.
Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006, 99: 178–182. 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178.CrossRef
19.
Leadbeater C: We Think: Mass Innovation Not Mass Production: the Power of Mass Creativity. 2008, London: Profile
20.
Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O: Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med. 2008, 5: e201-10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Classical peer review: an empty gun
Author
Richard Smith
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue Special Issue 4/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2742

Other articles of this Special Issue 4/2010

Breast Cancer Research 4/2010 Go to the issue

Short communication

Contribution of biomarkers to personalized medicine

Short communication

The emerging breast cancer epidemic: early diagnosis and treatment

Short communication

Emerging breast cancer epidemic: impact on palliative care

Short communication

Designing adjuvant treatment based on biological measurements in the neoadjuvant setting

Short communication

Randomized adjuvant trials in oncology: a necessity or time-consuming luxury?

Short communication

Genome-wide case-control study of musculoskeletal adverse events and functional genomics in women receiving aromatase inhibitors: going beyond associations
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits