Shashok K
Grupo de Trabajo Evaluación y Transferencia de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Granada, España.
Rev Neurol. 1997 Dec;25(148):1946-50.
To point out some defects in the process of selection of manuscripts for publication in the primary biomedical literature, and offer some recommendations for reviewers, editors and authors that can enhance the accountability and effectiveness of peer review.
Although peer review is said to guarantee the quality of scientific journals, there are no experimental data to prove this statement, and research is urgently needed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of the system. The term 'peer review' is used for very different processes, and there is no commonly accepted definition. To ensure professionalism and accountability, all steps of the peer review process need to be well thought out and documented, and the responsibilities of all persons involved need to be clearly defined.
To ensure accountability in the peer review system and reduce the probability of errors and abuse, every journal should have in place a set of internal guidelines of good practice for editorial staff, reviewers and authors, and this information should be made widely available.
指出生物医学基础文献稿件发表筛选过程中的一些缺陷，并为审稿人、编辑和作者提供一些建议，以提高同行评审的问责制和有效性。
尽管同行评审据称能保证科学期刊的质量，但尚无实验数据证明这一说法，迫切需要开展研究以阐明该系统的优缺点。“同行评审”一词用于非常不同的过程，且没有普遍接受的定义。为确保专业性和问责制，同行评审过程的所有步骤都需要经过深思熟虑并记录在案，所有相关人员的职责都需要明确界定。
为确保同行评审系统的问责制并降低错误和滥用的可能性，每种期刊都应为编辑人员、审稿人和作者制定一套内部良好实践指南，并应广泛提供此信息。
