J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:1683-1685
© 2003 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective
Frank W. Sellke, MD*,a
a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass, USA
Received for publication July 16, 2003; accepted for publication July 28, 2003.
* Address for reprints: Frank W. Sellke, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis St, LMOB 2a, Boston, MA 02215, USA
fsellke@bidmc.harvard.edu
| The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
One of the hallmarks of academic surgery, or medicine in general, is the dissemination of new information from personal experience, clinical trials, and laboratory investigation. Recently, this has taken several new forms with the advent of computer-based presentations and graphics and the use of Web-based media in addition to old, standard, hard-copy journals. Whatever the media format, to make certain that the new information has a reasonable likelihood of being truthful and clinically or scientifically relevant, peer review has been used as a judge of validity, importance, and quality of presentation. Since its inception, the peer-review process has been criticized by some as slowing this dissemination of knowledge. In fact, several Nobel Prize–winning findings have been rejected for publication during the initial review. However, without this screening process, most of what we read or hear would not be worth the time required to absorb it. The following will describe my personal view of the process as a frequent reviewer for several medical and scientific journals.
Why do peer review?
The peer-review process generally involves having one's academic work judged by several peers, which by definition means equals, but in fact, the peers are usually persons with some perceived exceptional knowledge or experience in the subject area being evaluated. First and foremost, the peer-review process provides expert opinion regarding the quality and appropriateness of research. Are the findings important and relevant? This is the case whether findings are the result of a large clinical trial evaluating the use of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass surgery, the use of a new molecular target for the treatment of childhood leukemia, or the discovery of a new nuclear particle. The study might involve a large number of patients being subjected to several hazardous treatments, have cost millions of dollars, and required 10,000 man-hours of work. However, if . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Copyright © 2003 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.
