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

Volume

287

Issue

21

Pages

2784-2786

DOI

10.1001/jama.287.21.2784

DOI registrant

American Medical Association

Link

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

Cited from

ethnography_qualitative_methods, library_information_science

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

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

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