Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Orv Hetil. 2002 Feb 3;143(5):245-8.

[Double-blind peer review].

[Article in Hungarian]

Author information

1
Altalános Orvostudományi Kar, III. sz. Belgyógyászati Klinika, Semmelweis Egyetem, Budapest.

Abstract

The peer review process in medical sciences is much debated. The method is not yet evidence based. Who are the reviewers and how do they perform? They are "independent" experts. As such they are bound to be involved in research similar to that outlined in the manuscript. Very often they are contestant in the same race. That is why the author consider the double blind method, where the author is blinded and the reviewer masked from each other's identity, the best choice. Nevertheless in very many scientific journals of high quality and envied impact factors do not blind the identity of the authors. Science is a race for fame, self accomplishment and also a means to get grants for pursuing the scientific research. Only success is able to provide resources for expensive scientific research. There is no fail-safe method against bias in grant giving and editorial process. In the tidal wave of electronic information it is mandatory to help in differentiating between signal and noise in science. Peer review is the best method to protect readers from the trash of uncontrolled publications in medical science.

PMID:
11875838
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Support Center