Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation
Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication bi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation 2003-10, Vol.82 (10), p.790-802 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 802 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 790 |
| container_title | American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation |
| container_volume | 82 |
| creator | WAGNER, Amy K BONINGER, Michael L LEVY, Charles CHAN, Leighton GATER, David KIRBY, R. Lee |
| description | Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75714663</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>75714663</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c203t-8fdeb7cc5ea637865cd64f624c23cb3b8c1c49282f6f42e27b79bae9a2b462473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1PwkAQhjdGI4j-BdOY6K11Z7-rJyEqJBg56Hmz3W7DmtJit2j49y5Cwlzm8sy8Mw9CN4AzwLm8x5Atpm8Z3pWSAsuMKJxDNpYnaAicylRSxU_REKucpTkAH6CLEL4iznMqz9EAGMeKAQzR48K5Luncj3e_D8kshI0LiW-S9XIbvDV1snKlt75xiWnKyC1N4Wvfm963zSU6q0wd3NWhj9Dny_PHZJrO319nk6d5agmmfaqq0hXSWu6MoFIJbkvBKkGYJdQWtFAWLMuJIpWoGHFEFjIvjMsNKVikJB2hu_3eddd-x_t6vfLBuro2jWs3QUsugQlBI_iwB23XhtC5Sq87vzLdVgPWO3Uag47q9FGd_lenx7uU60PKpohPH0cPriJwewBMiGaqzjTWhyPHQQBhQP8Aa7V3DQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>75714663</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>WAGNER, Amy K ; BONINGER, Michael L ; LEVY, Charles ; CHAN, Leighton ; GATER, David ; KIRBY, R. Lee</creator><creatorcontrib>WAGNER, Amy K ; BONINGER, Michael L ; LEVY, Charles ; CHAN, Leighton ; GATER, David ; KIRBY, R. Lee</creatorcontrib><description>Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-9115</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-7385</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14508411</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Baltimore, MD: Lippincott</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Ethics, Research ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Peer Review, Research - methods ; Peer Review, Research - standards ; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine ; Publication Bias ; Publishing - standards ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; Research Design - standards ; United States</subject><ispartof>American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2003-10, Vol.82 (10), p.790-802</ispartof><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c203t-8fdeb7cc5ea637865cd64f624c23cb3b8c1c49282f6f42e27b79bae9a2b462473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15161241$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14508411$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>WAGNER, Amy K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BONINGER, Michael L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEVY, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHAN, Leighton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATER, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIRBY, R. Lee</creatorcontrib><title>Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation</title><title>American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Am J Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><description>Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Ethics, Research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research - methods</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research - standards</subject><subject>Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>Publication Bias</subject><subject>Publishing - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0894-9115</issn><issn>1537-7385</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1PwkAQhjdGI4j-BdOY6K11Z7-rJyEqJBg56Hmz3W7DmtJit2j49y5Cwlzm8sy8Mw9CN4AzwLm8x5Atpm8Z3pWSAsuMKJxDNpYnaAicylRSxU_REKucpTkAH6CLEL4iznMqz9EAGMeKAQzR48K5Luncj3e_D8kshI0LiW-S9XIbvDV1snKlt75xiWnKyC1N4Wvfm963zSU6q0wd3NWhj9Dny_PHZJrO319nk6d5agmmfaqq0hXSWu6MoFIJbkvBKkGYJdQWtFAWLMuJIpWoGHFEFjIvjMsNKVikJB2hu_3eddd-x_t6vfLBuro2jWs3QUsugQlBI_iwB23XhtC5Sq87vzLdVgPWO3Uag47q9FGd_lenx7uU60PKpohPH0cPriJwewBMiGaqzjTWhyPHQQBhQP8Aa7V3DQ</recordid><startdate>20031001</startdate><enddate>20031001</enddate><creator>WAGNER, Amy K</creator><creator>BONINGER, Michael L</creator><creator>LEVY, Charles</creator><creator>CHAN, Leighton</creator><creator>GATER, David</creator><creator>KIRBY, R. Lee</creator><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031001</creationdate><title>Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation</title><author>WAGNER, Amy K ; BONINGER, Michael L ; LEVY, Charles ; CHAN, Leighton ; GATER, David ; KIRBY, R. Lee</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c203t-8fdeb7cc5ea637865cd64f624c23cb3b8c1c49282f6f42e27b79bae9a2b462473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Ethics, Research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research - methods</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research - standards</topic><topic>Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>Publication Bias</topic><topic>Publishing - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WAGNER, Amy K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BONINGER, Michael L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEVY, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHAN, Leighton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATER, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KIRBY, R. Lee</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WAGNER, Amy K</au><au>BONINGER, Michael L</au><au>LEVY, Charles</au><au>CHAN, Leighton</au><au>GATER, David</au><au>KIRBY, R. Lee</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation</atitle><jtitle>American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><date>2003-10-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>790</spage><epage>802</epage><pages>790-802</pages><issn>0894-9115</issn><eissn>1537-7385</eissn><abstract>Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.</abstract><cop>Baltimore, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott</pub><pmid>14508411</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0894-9115 |
| ispartof | American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2003-10, Vol.82 (10), p.790-802 |
| issn | 0894-9115 1537-7385 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_75714663 |
| source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Ethics, Research Humans Medical sciences Miscellaneous Peer Review, Research - methods Peer Review, Research - standards Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Publication Bias Publishing - standards Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) Research Design - standards United States |
| title | Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T14%3A03%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Peer%20review:%20Issues%20in%20physical%20medicine%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20physical%20medicine%20&%20rehabilitation&rft.au=WAGNER,%20Amy%20K&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=790&rft.epage=802&rft.pages=790-802&rft.issn=0894-9115&rft.eissn=1537-7385&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E75714663%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=75714663&rft_id=info:pmid/14508411&rfr_iscdi=true |