EDITORIAL
Medical publishing
Peer review
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
G Hughes
The Emergency Department, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia; cchdhb@yahoo.com
Accepted 25 April 2007
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
If a paper is published in a peer reviewed medical, biological or scientific journal there is a tacit assumption made by a significant proportion of readers, as well as many in the mainstream media, that it has survived a closely scrutinised, transparent and vigorous process of analysis and criticism from learned colleagues, before acceptance by the journals editors. It must surely be a good paper and it must surely have something worthwhile to say, otherwise it will have been rejected. The reality is that the paper may have a worthwhile message, but it may not.
As Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, says, peer review is hard to define, its defects are easier to identify than its attributes, and until recently it has been unstudied. He adds that "if you persist long enough you can get anything published, no matter how terrible".1
A paper submitted to
Relevant Article
- Primary Survey
- Darren Walter
Emerg. Med. J. 2007 24: 453.[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
