Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Dec;35(6):747-749. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.017. Epub 2017 Aug 24.

Review the 'peer review'.

Author information

1
Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussel, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Electronic address: Christophe.Blockeel@uzbrussel.be.
2
Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussel, Belgium.
3
Department of Reproductive Medicine, Dexeus University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
4
IVI Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Abstract

Peer review has been the main form of appraisal of scientific knowledge for over a century. In essence, this process involves the evaluation of a scientific finding by independent experts prior to its dissemination to the scientific community, in an attempt to ensure that both the research and conclusions meet the necessary standards regarding quality, accuracy, relevance and novelty. However, although 'peer review' is considered the current gold standard, it is far from perfect. A focus on the methodology of an article and reviewers' training are key messages for the scientific community. Guidelines on how to review an article are needed and may help reviewers deal with this difficult process.

KEYWORDS:

Evidence-based; Peer review; Review; Scientific quality

PMID:
28887106
DOI:
10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.017
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center