Wagner Amy K, Boninger Michael L, Levy Charles, Chan Leighton, Gater David, Kirby R Lee
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Safar Center for Resucitation Research University of pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Oct;82(10):790-802. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7.
Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.
同行评审虽然是评估科研的标准,但并非没有缺陷。研究表明,同行评审者的意见并不一致,会遗漏研究中的主要优点和不足。评审者和作者的偏见,包括利益冲突和阳性结果发表偏倚,都是经常研究和辩论的话题。对于不恰当的署名以及涉及人体和动物实验的伦理过程的充分报告,也引发了更多关注。尽管存在这些问题,但良好的同行评审可以为作者提供积极反馈,并提高医学期刊所报道研究的质量。本文回顾了同行评审过程中的一些问题和关注点,并为物理医学与康复领域的新评审者(以及资深评审者)提出了指导方针。它还为物理医学与康复研究期刊的编辑考量和同行评审过程的改进提供了建议。