• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[Strenghts and weaknesses of peer review].

作者信息

Camí Jordi

机构信息

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Parc de Recerca Biomèdica de Barcelona (PRBB), Barcelona, España.

出版信息

Med Clin (Barc). 2008 Dec;131 Suppl 5:20-4. doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76402-9.

DOI:10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76402-9
PMID:19631818
Abstract

The peer review paradigm in our system of professional self-regulation is a complementary evaluation procedure - and as imperfect as - bibliometrics. The application of peer review depends on the journal's aims and circumstances and its results should always be contextualized, especially given the current cult of considering the journal of publication more important than the article's content and message. Participation in the peer review processes is usually altruistic and requires that certain rules of courtesy and good practice be followed, one of the main problems being conflicts of interest. peer review processes are expensive and show scant reproducibility. The system is highly subjective, conservative, and prone to bias and is generally unable to detect fraud. However, effective alternatives are lacking. Consequently, peer review procedures should be examined in greater depth and its application in optimal conditions - and based on the scarce evidence available - should be encouraged.

摘要

相似文献

1
[Strenghts and weaknesses of peer review].
Med Clin (Barc). 2008 Dec;131 Suppl 5:20-4. doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76402-9.
2
Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.医学科学中的利益冲突:同行使用、同行评审与“利益冲突咨询”
Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(2):181-6. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.06.001.
3
Role of the manuscript reviewer.稿件评审人的作用。
Singapore Med J. 2009 Oct;50(10):931-3; quiz 934.
4
Citations, impact factors and shady publication practices: how should the lasting clinical and social value of research really be measured?引用、影响因子与不正当发表行为:研究真正持久的临床和社会价值究竟应如何衡量?
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010 Mar;19(2):141-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01178.x.
5
A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.医学期刊同行评审员系统指南。
J Med Pract Manage. 2015 Mar-Apr;30(6 Spec No):13-7.
6
HIV denialists will exploit any journal's tolerance.否认艾滋病病毒存在的人会利用任何期刊的宽容态度。
Nature. 2004 Feb 26;427(6977):777. doi: 10.1038/427777c.
7
Ethical and quasi-ethical issues in medical editing and publishing.医学编辑与出版中的伦理及准伦理问题。
Croat Med J. 1998 Jun;39(2):95-101.
8
Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.强化发表后同行评审的纠正性质:识别弱点、利用期刊俱乐部以及奖励尽责行为。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Aug;23(4):1213-1226. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
9
How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.评审员如何影响最终结果?同行评审的质量与提交稿件的相对接受率比较。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Sep;201(3):468-70. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10025.
10
The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators.期刊指标及其他引用指标的使用与误用。
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00005-009-0008-y. Epub 2009 Feb 14.