Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Account Res. 2010 May;17(3):130-45. doi: 10.1080/08989621003791945.

Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.

Author information

1
School of Education, Durham University, Durham, England, UK. D.P.Newton@durham.ac.uk

Abstract

Peer review gives research a stamp of approval, but the reviews themselves can be flawed. This is potentially serious for the writer, the journal, and journal user. This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors. Some proposals to improve matters are impractical and may make them worse. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests a potential solution. Informed editors who avoid mechanical approaches engage cautiously and critically with reviews and guard against bias, even in themselves, could make a significant difference.

PMID:
20461569
DOI:
10.1080/08989621003791945
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Taylor & Francis
    Loading ...
    Support Center