Effects of Editorial Peer Review

Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 287(21), 2784-2786.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2002

DOI

10.1001/jama.287.21.2784

Link

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2784

Cited from

library_information_science, research_methods

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• External Analytic Challenge
  • Reading a completed challenge as a licence is the most common misuse: it converts a correction mechanism into a defence and relocates responsibility onto people who never held it.

    This sourceReviews the controlled evidence and concludes that editorial peer review, though widely used, is largely untested and its effects uncertain, so surviving it warrants nothing about the work.

• Peer Review
  • Empirical reviews of editorial peer review have repeatedly cautioned that plausible institutional value should not be inflated into strong universal causal claims without comparative evidence.

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:6c1e0cbff5ff · see in the full table