Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[The reviewers' review].

David Rabinerson1, Eran Horowitz, Yoav Peled

  • 1Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva. dadirabi@gmail.com

Harefuah
|September 21, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Preoperative predictors of blood transfusion during cesarean delivery in placenta accreta spectrum.

Minerva obstetrics and gynecology·2026
Same author

Weighing the global built environment: High-resolution mapping and quantification of material stocks in buildings.

Journal of industrial ecology·2026
Same author

Cross-national risk factors for childbirth-related PTSD: Findings from the INTERSECT study.

Psychological medicine·2025
Same author

Post-traumatic stress symptoms and post-traumatic growth among fertility physicians.

Psychology, health & medicine·2025
Same author

Do women accurately predict their odds of having a child following planned oocyte cryopreservation?

Reproduction & fertility·2025
Same author

Personal growth during early and advanced pregnancy according to women's mode of conception.

Journal of reproductive and infant psychology·2024

Scientific peer review ensures study quality but faces criticism due to its opaque nature and lack of standard evaluation criteria. This article examines the peer review process and its challenges.

Area of Science:

  • Medical publishing
  • Scientific communication

Context:

  • Peer review is a fundamental process in scientific and medical publishing, crucial for validating research quality, integrity, and novelty.
  • It has historically served as the cornerstone for scientific acceptance and credibility.
  • However, the non-transparent nature and absence of standardized evaluation criteria for peer review have led to significant criticism.

Purpose:

  • To critically examine the established peer review process in scientific and medical journals.
  • To highlight the inherent challenges and criticisms associated with the current peer review system.
  • To underscore the unique responsibilities of editors and reviewers in the context of a specialized scientific-medical platform.

Summary:

  • Peer review is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publications.

Related Experiment Videos

  • The process is often criticized for its lack of transparency and standardized evaluation metrics.
  • This article delves into these criticisms and their implications for scientific discourse.

    • Impact:

    • Understanding the limitations of peer review can lead to improvements in scientific publishing standards.
    • Addressing the criticisms may foster a more robust and equitable system for scientific validation.
    • The findings are particularly relevant for editors and reviewers within specialized scientific-medical communities.