Peer review is an essential component for the evaluation of material submitted to medical and scientific journals. This process usually involves single blind, double blind or open peer review. In the present Editorial, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these peer review options. Our comments are influenced by our experience as Editors-in-Chief. We also outline new developments in the field of peer review.
DavidoffF. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(1):66-68.
2.
BaggsJGBroomeMEDoughertyMCFredaMCKearneyMH. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64(2):131-138.
3.
KellyJSadeghiehTAdeliK. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227-243.
4.
HorbachSPJMSHalffmanWW. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(8).
5.
ManchikantiLKayeADBoswellMVHirschJA. Μedical journal peer review: process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1-E14.
6.
TvinaASpellecyRPalatnikA. Bias in the peer review process: can we do better?Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(6):1081-1083.
7.
AlamMKimNAHaveyJ, et al.Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3):563-567.
8.
JeffersonTRudinMBrodney FolseSDavidoffF. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000016.
9.
KearneyMHFredaMC. Nurse editors’ views on the peer review process. Res Nurs Health. 2005;28(6):444-452.
10.
VauxDL. A biased comment on double-blind review. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3):454.
11.
LazaridesMKGeorgiadisGSPapanasN. Do’s and don’ts for a good reviewer of scientific papers: a beginner’s brief decalogue. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2020;19(3):227-229.
12.
JeffersonTAldersonPWagerEDavidoffF. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-2786.
13.
WagerEParkinECTamberPS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med. 2006;4:13.
14.
SchroterSTiteLHutchingsABlackN. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-317.
15.
DerraikJGBButlerÉMRerkasemK. Publishing without perishing: a guide to the successful reporting of clinical data. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(3):219-227.
16.
LazaridesMKGougoudiEPapanasN. Pitfalls and misconducts in medical writing. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(4):350-353.
17.
LazaridesMKLazaridouIZPapanasN. Review article: the flagship of evidence-based medicine. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(2):83-87.
18.
DaskalopoulouSSMikhailidisDP. The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(2):307-310.
19.
ZhuJFungGWongWHLiZXuC. Evaluating the pros and cons of different peer review policies via simulation. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(4):1073-1094.
