Comments on: In Search Of an Optimal Peer Review System

By: Former NEJM editors on the corruption of American medicine (NY Times)–e-Patient Dave | Knowledge of Medicine

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:06:12 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Opening the Door to Closeted Science–Sarah Greene | Knowledge of Medicine

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:09:51 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Opening the Door to Closeted Science | e-Patients.net

Opening the Door to Closeted Science | e-Patients.net — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:26:13 +0000

[...] blog. In its inaugural issue Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, summarized his observations: After 30 years of practicing peer review and 15 years of studying it experimentally, I’m [...]

By: Once again: e-patient essential – sorting out what writings to trust | e-Patients.net

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:01:16 +0000

[...] then I reflected that in the opening issue of our JoPM, 25 year BMJ editor Richard Smith said ”most of what appears in peer-reviewed journals is scientifically weak.” And I [...]

By: Exaggerated Claims Can Be Found In Respected Medical Journals - Better Health

Exaggerated Claims Can Be Found In Respected Medical Journals - Better Health — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:00:00 +0000

[...] our journal JoPM‘s inaugural issue, Richard Smith wrote In Search of an Optimal Peer Review System, saying “After 30 years of practicing peer review and 15 years of studying it experimentally, [...]

By: Richard Smith: Beware journals, especially “top” ones (BMJ blog) | e-Patients.net

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:21:49 +0000

By: Fixing Those Damn Lies | e-Patients.net

Fixing Those Damn Lies | e-Patients.net — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:53 +0000

[...] Smith RW. In search of an optimal peer review system. J Participat Med. 2009(Oct);1(1):e13. Retrieved 20:05, October 18, 2010. Smith’s article is [...]

By: Atlantic: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science | e-Patients.net

Atlantic: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science | e-Patients.net — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:49:13 +0000

[...] There’s an extraordinary new article in The Atlantic, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science.” It echos the excellent article in our Journal of Participatory Medicine (JoPM) one year ago this week, by Richard W. Smith, 25 year editor of the British Medical Journal: In Search Of an Optimal Peer Review System. [...]

By: F.B. van Heest

F.B. van Heest — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:26:40 +0000

In the complexity of medicine there should more attention for ideas and thoughts. The peer review helped me a lot in learning to write things down more precise and more with the reader in my mind.
I agree that accent inmedicine is too often on farmcological interventions. The diagnostic process is much more interesting for me as a GP but at the same time more difficult to investigate.
The editors of the journals should keep intouch with the workfloor.
Selection of what is important to read is a good thing and saves valuable time for the pratitioner.

By: Jeff Shrager

Jeff Shrager — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:20:57 +0000

Much is made these days (over and over and over!) about the supposed horrors of peer review: It is said to be inefficient, biased, and to fail to serve the role that it was intended to serve, of producing a high quality archival literature. Although I think that everyone would agree that the peer review system could be improved, esp. in terms of its speed, I feel that these discussions miss what seems to me to be the most important value of peer review: Its role in the education of scientists, and specifically, of highly efficient, precisely targeted, and secure narrow band communication among scientists. Having received hundreds of peer reviews of my work, and certainly my fair share of negative reviews, I can only think of one review that I received that was not useful to me in improving my paper, and more importantly, in teaching me something important and central to my field — usually many things! We say things in our manuscripts, and in our reviews of others’ manuscripts, things that often ought probably not reach the light of day. Reviewer’s catch these for us, and teach us why these are not the right things to say. On the other side, we say things in the reviews we write that we would never publish, because we are speaking to particular scientists (the authors of the paper), basically teaching them what we think they ought to know. Nowhere else, once scientists leave their final post doc, is there a similar opportunity for direct continuing eduction. Peer review is only in part a filtering system — and to my mind that is a relatively small part of it value. It is, in addition and more importantly, a highly efficient and secure system of targeted peer education. To ignore this function in changing the way the peer review works is, to my mind, to endanger one of the pillars of scientific communication.