Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (Cochrane Review)
by Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin, Suzanne Brodney Folse, Frank Davidoff · Cochrane Library
Cochrane methodology review by Jefferson, Rudin, Brodney Folse and Davidoff (2007) pooling the experimental studies on editorial peer review. Concludes there is little empirical evidence that it improves the quality of published biomedical research and calls for proper trials. Primary evidence synthesis that Smith and later critics rely on; for learners who want the data rather than commentary.
More resources on Peer Review
Elsevier Peer Review Resource Center
Elsevier's explainer on how journal peer review works, covering the review process, the main models (single-anonymized, double-anonymized, open), and reviewer responsibilities. Useful for understanding what happens to a manuscript after submission and what editors expect from reviewers.
How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (Project-Centered Course)
Project-centered course from École Polytechnique in which learners outline a complete research paper of their own, select a suitable journal, and build a pre-submission checklist. Suited to graduate students and researchers with an existing project who want to publish it.
Peer review and publishing at eLife (Reviewed Preprint model)
eLife's own description of its publish-review-curate model: every reviewed paper is published as a Reviewed Preprint with public reviews, author response and an eLife Assessment rating significance and strength of evidence, replacing accept/reject decisions. Shows concretely how peer review can be restructured; gives learners a working alternative to the traditional model.
Web of Science Academy: Peer Review Courses
Free self-paced courses from Clarivate (formerly Publons Academy): an introduction to peer review, reviewing in the sciences or humanities with a report template, co-reviewing with a mentor, and mentoring reviewers. Requires a free login; certificates on completion.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
The canonical critical essay; gives learners the evidence base for what peer review does and does not do. Former BMJ editor Richard Smith reviews the evidence on journal peer review: poor inter-reviewer agreement, bias, cost, slowness, weak fraud detection, and BMJ's own trials of blinding, open review and reviewer training. Short, heavily cited essay (JRSM 2006).
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Formal policy from the Committee on Publication Ethics setting out what reviewers owe authors and editors: declaring conflicts and limits of expertise, confidentiality, timeliness, objective and constructive comments, and how to handle suspected misconduct in a manuscript.