Peer review

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2006

Volume

99

Issue

4

Pages

178-182

DOI registrant

SAGE Publications

Link

https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414 not authoritativefound

Cited from

engineering_design

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

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

Primes

• Quality Control
  • This pattern mirrors Smith's (2006) account of peer review as a flawed but persistent quality-control mechanism whose performance is itself routinely audited.

    This sourceInfluential editorial documenting peer review as a human-judgment quality-control mechanism whose performance metrics (acceptance rates, reviewer agreement, retraction trends) follow the same structural loop as manufacturing QC.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no 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:7b506b07cd2e · see in the full table