This is an archived version of CRA's website. This archive is available to provide historical content.
Please visit http://www.cra.org for the latest information.
The strengths and weaknesses of the traditional peer review system have been discussed extensively in many forums. Some interesting links are given below:
- Quality Control: The case against peer review by Daniel Engber, April 5, 2005.
- Is Peer Review Broken? by Allison McCook, 20(2):26, Feb 1, 2006.
- Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies by Jefferson, M Rudin, S Brodney Folse, and F Davidoff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3
- Experimenting with Peer-Review by Martin Walker, 2009.
- Peer Review Guide by the UK Research Information Network, Mar 2010.
- Peer review is no picnic by Jenny Rohn, Sep 6, 2010.
- Peer review highly sensitive to poor refereeing, claim researchers by James Dacey, Sep 9, 2010.
- A trip through the peer review sausage grinder by Chris Lee, Nov 2010.
- Classical peer review: an empty gun by Richard Smith, Dec 20, 2010.
- Strong scientific peer review leads to better science and policy formation in Science Blog, January 19, 2011.
- Peer-review here we go again... by Sylvia McLain, Jan. 22, 2011.
- Peer review: Trial by Twitter by Apoorva Mandavilli, January 23, 2011. Also in Nature 469, 286-287 (2011) | doi:10.1038/469286a, published online on Jan 19, 2011.
- What is it with researchers and peer review? or; Why misquoting Churchill does not an argument make by Cameron Neylon, Jan 25, 2011.
1828 L STREET, NW SUITE 800, WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | P: 202-234-2111 | F: 202-667-1066