Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;2007(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3.
Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals.
To estimate the effect of processes in editorial peer review.
The following databases were searched to June 2004: CINAHL, Ovid, Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: ACP Journal Club, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed.
We included prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and reporting original research, regardless of publication status. We hoped to find studies identifying good submissions on the basis of: importance of the topic dealt with, relevance of the topic to the journal, usefulness of the topic, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of reporting.
Because of the diversity of study questions, viewpoints, methods, and outcomes, we carried out a descriptive review of included studies grouping them by broad study question.
We included 28 studies. We found no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (9 studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (2 studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (1 study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (3 studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (2 studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.
科学发现若要被视为有效，就必须经得起严格审查，而编辑同行评审（批评，试图证伪）是科学过程的一个基本要素。我们回顾了提交给生物医学期刊以纸质或电子形式发表的原创性研究的编辑同行评审过程的证据。
评估编辑同行评审过程的效果。
检索了以下数据库至2004年6月：护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL）、Ovid、Cochrane方法学注册库、论文摘要数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、循证医学评论：美国内科医师学会杂志俱乐部、医学索引数据库（MEDLINE）、心理学文摘数据库（PsycINFO）、医学期刊数据库（PubMed）。
我们纳入了前瞻性或回顾性比较研究，这些研究有两个或更多的比较组，通过随机或其他适当方法产生，并报告原创性研究，无论其发表状态如何。我们希望找到基于以下方面识别优秀投稿的研究：所涉及主题的重要性、主题与期刊的相关性、主题的实用性、方法的合理性、伦理的合理性、报告的完整性和准确性。
由于研究问题、观点、方法和结果的多样性，我们对纳入的研究进行了描述性综述，根据广泛的研究问题对它们进行分组。
我们纳入了28项研究。我们没有发现明确的证据表明，审稿人和/或作者隐匿这一经过充分研究的做法对质量评估过程的结果有影响（9项研究）。清单和其他标准化媒介有一些证据支持它们的使用（2项研究）。没有证据表明审稿人的培训对结果质量有任何影响（1项研究）。与审稿人沟通的不同方法和传播方式似乎对质量没有影响（3项研究）。基于一项研究，对于同行评审过程检测针对非传统药物的偏见的能力几乎无法说明什么。同行评审的有效性仅在一个专业领域的一项小型研究中得到检验。编辑同行评审似乎使论文更具可读性并提高了报告的总体质量（2项研究），但这方面的证据普遍适用性非常有限。
目前，几乎没有实证证据支持将编辑同行评审用作确保生物医学研究质量的机制。然而，研究同行评审的方法学问题众多且复杂。目前，缺乏关于有效性和效果的证据不能被解释为它们不存在的证据。应紧急启动一项大型、资金充足的关于编辑同行评审效果的研究计划。
