This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Some Vagaries of the Editorial Process

ARTHUR E. BAUE, MD

Arch Surg. 1985;120(8):885-888.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Review and judgment by one's peers seem to be inherently if not a perfect system, at least the best of any alternatives. It is the basis of our jury system. It is the most common way to evaluate and provide support for research. It is thought to be the hallmark of a good "peer-reviewed" scientific journal. A jury, however, is formed publicly, the names of study section members are published, and both of these groups act collectively. Reviewers or referees for journals function individually and anonymously. Also, there are peers and there are experts. Experts may hardly be peers or peers expert.

The peer review system for scientific journals has been criticized because it is slow, expensive, and time consuming for many scientists; it also is anonymous, which allows for the possibility of elitism, bigotry, prejudice, difficulty in publishing work by new or young scientists, and delay in publishing innovative . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
St Louis

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?