Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals

Current scholarly publications heavily rely on high quality peer review. Peer review, albeit imperfect, is aimed at improving science writing and editing. Evidence supporting peer review as a guarantor of the quality of biomedical publications is currently lacking. Its outcomes are largely dependent on the credentials of the reviewers. Several lines of evidence suggest that predictors of the best contributors to the process include affiliation to a good University and proper research training. Though the options to further improve peer review are currently limited, experts are in favor of formal education and courses on peer review for all contributors to this process. Long-term studies are warranted to assess the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

• Publication year

  2012

• Venue

  Croatian Medical Journal

• Publication date

  2012-08-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386PMID 22911533PMCID 3428827
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Diversity, value and limitations of the journal impact factor and alternative metrics

  2012cited by this paper
• Medical journal editors lacked familiarity with scientific publication issues despite training and regular exposure.

  2012cited by this paper
• Familiarizing with science editors' associations

  2011cited by this paper
• The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal

  2011cited by this paper
• Biomedical journal editing: elements of success

  2011cited by this paper
• Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.

  2011cited by this paper
• Multiple rejections: role of the writing process.

  2011cited by this paper
• UK Parliament comments on peer review

  2011cited by this paper
• Publication Delay in Iranian Scholarly Journals

  2011cited by this paper
• Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial

  2011cited by this paper
• Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.

  2010cited by this paper
• The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals

  2010cited by this paper
• Who is afraid of reviewers’ comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited

  2010cited by this paper
• Classical peer review: an empty gun

  2010cited by this paper
• Judge the article, not the author.

  2010cited by this paper
• Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns.

  2010cited by this paper
• Science will never be the same again.

  2010cited by this paper
• The luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews

  2009cited by this paper
• Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.

  2009cited by this paper
• EDITORIAL A medium of science communication in our times

  2009cited by this paper
• Prepublication Review of Medical Ethics Research: Cause for Concern

  2009cited by this paper
• Relationship between Quality and Editorial Leadership of Biomedical Research Journals: A Comparative Study of Italian and UK Journals

  2008cited by this paper
• The pitfalls and rewards of peer review.

  2008cited by this paper
• Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere

  2008cited by this paper
• Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.

  2007cited by this paper
• The dual role of peer-review systems in developing countries.

  2007cited by this paper
• A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.

  2007cited by this paper
• Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

  2007cited by this paper
• Academic Editor: Richard Hornung, Cincinnati Childrens Hospital, United States of America

  2007cited by this paper
• Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

  2006cited by this paper
• Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial

  2004cited by this paper
• Information for Research in Developing Countries — Information Technology, a Friend or Foe?

  2003cited by this paper
• What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

  1998cited by this paper
• The evolution of editorial peer review.

  1990cited by this paper

• Exploring reviewer self-assessment in the context of academic peer review

  2025cites this paper
• The long wait: unpacking the causes behind peer review delays

  2025cites this paper
• Spotting potential reviewers for interdisciplinary research: insights on active reviewers from Publons

  2024cites this paper
• The effect East Asian researcher’s academic performance on international journal review and editing activities

  2024cites this paper
• Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics

  2023cites this paper
• Strategies for Developing Journal Peer Reviewers: A Scoping Review

  2023cites this paper
• Identifying the characteristics of excellent peer reviewers by using Publons

  2022cites this paper
• Proper Scholarly Writing for Non-Native English-Speaking Authors: Choosing Active and Passive Voice, Rewording, and Refining Texts

  2022cites this paper
• A Glance at the Activity of Iranian Researchers and Reviewers in Publons

  2022cites this paper
• Peer review as a measurable responsibility of those who publish: The peer review debt index.

  2022cites this paper
• PUBLONS BASED PROFILING OF TURKISH REVIEWERS AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

  2021cites this paper
• Modern Health Journalism and the Impact of Social Media

  2021cites this paper
• Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers

  2021cites this paper
• Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

  2021cites this paper
• Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology

  2020cites this paper
• Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?

  2020cites this paper
• Reconocimiento a nuestros revisores

  2019cites this paper
• Reviewers' Responses to Medical Research Articles.

  2019cites this paper
• Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study

  2019cites this paper
• How do I peer-review a scientific article?-a personal perspective.

  2018cites this paper
• Being a researcher is not only a matter of publishing: learning to review scientific articles / No solo de publicar viven los investigadores: aprender a revisar artículos científicos

  2017cites this paper
• Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.

  2017cites this paper
• What We Still Don’t Know About Peer Review

  2016cites this paper
• Combined Rewarding Mechanisms Can be Implemented to Incentivize the Best Reviewers.

  2015cites this paper
• Kako ispuniti kriterije o autorstvu i etici u publiciranju

  2015cites this paper
• Financial Incentives to Reviewers: Double-edged Sword

  2015cites this paper
• Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

  2015cites this paper
• Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication

  2015cites this paper
• Safeguarding the Integrity of Science Communication by Restraining 'Rational Cheating' in Peer Review

  2014cites this paper
• Supporting and enhancing peer review in the BJGP.

  2014cites this paper
• Educating science editors: is there a comprehensive strategy?

  2014cites this paper
• Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals

  2014cites this paper
• Systematic and Open Identification of Researchers and Authors: Focus on Open Researcher and Contributor ID

  2014cites this paper
• Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact

  2014cites this paper
• Peer-review policy and guidelines for Biochemia Medica Journal

  2014cites this paper
• Selecting Your Editorial Board: Maintaining Standards

  2013cites this paper
• Cascading peer review for open-access publishing

  2013cites this paper
• Multidisciplinary Bibliographic Databases

  2013cites this paper
• Bibliographic Databases: Some Critical Points

  2013cites this paper
• Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it

  2013cites this paper
• Research study designs: an appraisal for peer reviewers and science editors

  2013cites this paper
• Who reviews for interdisciplinary research? A Study based on Active Reviewers from Publons

  year unknowncites this paper