Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2006;14:357-358
© 2006 Asia Publishing EXchange Ltd
Who Reviews the Reviewers?
Benjamin Bidstrup, FRACS
Australia
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
"Moreover, inadequate reporting borders on unethical practice when biased results receive false credibility" The CONSORT Statement 2001.1
A publication in a peer-reviewed journal has many implications. The reader will assume that there has been full editorial supervision at all stages of the submission and acceptance, that reviewers who understand the subject and the nuances of the study have been selected, that data collection is adequate and appropriate, and importantly in this day of increasingly complex statistical tests (performed using small computers) that the design and analysis is appropriate and can be followed, that the study has been conducted appropriately, results have been described accurately, and the discussion takes into account existing evidence. Voluntary unpaid reviewers, often with little support or training, will do many of these tasks. The authors will make similar assumptions and consider after the process is complete that the report meets the standards of correctness (i.e. the truth).
It is also important to acknowledge the potential variations among readers. A physician or researcher with detailed knowledge in the area will view a paper in a different light to someone seeking knowledge about the subject or wishing to use similar methodology. A lay person with little knowledge may seize upon the results summarized in the abstract, which should accurately reflect and summarize, in the manner of an executive statement, the key findings and conclusions set out in the body of the manuscript, and take them as true. Reports of trials may have important financial implications for drug and device companies. Is this process . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Copyright © 2006 by the Asia Publishing EXchange Ltd.
