Interesting article in the Boston Globe: Flaws are found in validating medical studies: Many see need to overhaul standards for peer review
- Dr. Drummond Rennie, who relies on review as deputy editor of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said of the process, ''The more we look into it, the harder it is to prove whether it does good or bad."
Rennie has called for greater study of whether peer review improves research, and he has a personal policy of disclosing his name when he reviews articles.
''It would be lovely to start anew and to set up a trial of peer review against no peer review," Rennie said. ''But no journal is willing to risk it."
Are we timely or what? This is especially worth noting since, according to a recent poll, doctors favor journals over sales reps as information resources.
P.S. A related editorial, also from the Globe: Tainted Drug Research.
0 comments
Hide comments
