Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.
Kusumoto, Fred M; Bittl, John A; Creager, Mark A; Dauerman, Harold L; Lala, Anuradha; McDermott, Mary M; Turco, Justine Varieur; Taqueti, Viviany R; Fuster, Valentin.
Affiliation
  • Kusumoto FM; Department of Cardiovascular Disease, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Electronic address: kusumoto.fred@mayo.edu.
  • Bittl JA; Scientific Publications Committee, American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Creager MA; Heart and Vascular Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
  • Dauerman HL; Department of Medicine, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
  • Lala A; Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
  • McDermott MM; Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  • Turco JV; American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Taqueti VR; Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Fuster V; Mount Sinai Heart, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA; Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Madrid, Spain.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 82(21): 2054-2062, 2023 11 21.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37968021
The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pandemics / Medicine Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Year: 2023 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pandemics / Medicine Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Year: 2023 Type: Article