Peer review of human studies run amok: A break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public

Sarah Feldstein Ewing, Richard Saitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-2
Number of pages2
JournalEvidence-Based Medicine
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Research
Volunteers
Communication
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Peer review of human studies run amok : A break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public. / Feldstein Ewing, Sarah; Saitz, Richard.

In: Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.02.2015, p. 1-2.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{69c4f31766734df9ba865c8976ab1e17,
title = "Peer review of human studies run amok: A break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public",
abstract = "Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.",
author = "{Feldstein Ewing}, Sarah and Richard Saitz",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/ebmed-2014-110076",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "1--2",
journal = "Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1356-5524",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer review of human studies run amok

T2 - A break in the fiduciary relation between scientists and the public

AU - Feldstein Ewing, Sarah

AU - Saitz, Richard

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

AB - Peer review aims to ensure the quality and credibility of research reporting. Conducted by volunteer scientists who receive no guidance or direction, peer review widely varies from fast and facilitative, to unclear and obstructive. Poor quality is an issue because most science research is publicly funded, whereby scientists must make an effort to quickly disseminate their findings back to the public. An unfortunately not uncommon barrier in this process is ineffective peer review. Most scientists agree that when done well, editors and reviewers drive and maintain the high standards of science. At the same time, ineffective peer review can cause great delay with no introduced improvement in final product. These delays and requests interfere with the path of communication between scientist and public, at a great cost to editors, reviewers, authors and those who stand to benefit from application of the results of the studies. We offer a series of concrete recommendations to improve this process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961300866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961300866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110076

DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110076

M3 - Article

C2 - 25121564

AN - SCOPUS:84961300866

VL - 20

SP - 1

EP - 2

JO - Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1356-5524

IS - 1

ER -