Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
2011-7-21
pubmed:abstractText
Peer review of health-related manuscripts has enormous power in determining what is published in health-related journals, and what makes its way into health policy and clinical practice. However, peer review is at times ethically problematic and not always effective in achieving its goals. Over the past 25 years, a large number of debates about, and studies of, the peer review process has been published. Despite this, there is limited agreement about the strengths and weaknesses of peer review, and limited evidence about whether peer review achieves its goals and whether interventions to improve it have been successful. The authors argue that this state of affairs is not acceptable and that there is a need to systematise efforts to understand and improve the review process.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
1320-159X
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
18
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
724-7
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2011
pubmed:articleTitle
Where to now for health-related journal peer review?
pubmed:affiliation
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. Wendy.lipworth@sydney.edu.au
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article