Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation

Amy K. Wagner, Michael L. Boninger, Charles Levy, Leighton Chan, David Gater, R. Lee Kirby

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)790-802
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume82
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2003

Fingerprint

Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Peer Review
Human Experimentation
Authorship
Publication Bias
Conflict of Interest
Research
Guidelines

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Rehabilitation
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Wagner, Amy K. ; Boninger, Michael L. ; Levy, Charles ; Chan, Leighton ; Gater, David ; Kirby, R. Lee. / Peer review : Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. In: American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2003 ; Vol. 82, No. 10. pp. 790-802.
@article{2df7c3de1f5a415e98c993c155e8bda6,
title = "Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Wagner, {Amy K.} and Boninger, {Michael L.} and Charles Levy and Leighton Chan and David Gater and Kirby, {R. Lee}",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "790--802",
journal = "American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0894-9115",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

Peer review : Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. / Wagner, Amy K.; Boninger, Michael L.; Levy, Charles; Chan, Leighton; Gater, David; Kirby, R. Lee.

In: American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 82, No. 10, 01.10.2003, p. 790-802.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer review

T2 - Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation

AU - Wagner, Amy K.

AU - Boninger, Michael L.

AU - Levy, Charles

AU - Chan, Leighton

AU - Gater, David

AU - Kirby, R. Lee

PY - 2003/10/1

Y1 - 2003/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141457961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141457961&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7

DO - 10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7

M3 - Review article

C2 - 14508411

AN - SCOPUS:0141457961

VL - 82

SP - 790

EP - 802

JO - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0894-9115

IS - 10

ER -