At the fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication that was held in Barcelona, Spain, researchers found little evidence that the peer review process actually improves the quality of research papers. It has always been thought that the peer-review process is the best system for publishing a manuscript, but researchers have just recently started to question the value of this method. The process is the standard for publications in all major biomedical journals, but no one understands the value of peer-reviewed articles.The meta-analysis presented by Tom Jefferson and Elizabeth Wager of the Cochrane Centre in U.K., was not able to conclusively answer, "Does peer review have a measurable effect on the quality of manuscripts?" For example, nine studies looked at the effects of blinding the reviewers to the authors or vice versa; they found it made little difference to the quality of the final paper. Two other studies found little evidence that making peer reviewers use a standardized checklist led to better reviews, while two more studies revealed that training reviewers was practically useless.
Ironically, all the studies submitted to the conference were peer-reviewed and even if studies can't objectively determine the effectiveness of the peer review process, many editors still remain convinced that the review process helps. The peer review process helps in protecting the reputation of scientists and the truth is that no big funding agency is willing to fund a study about the scientific process, when the money could be used towards studying diseases.
Related Links:
