Search

Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles to this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement it because it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairness and reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy.

Re: Snaith B. An evaluation of author productivity in international radiography journals 2004–2011. J Med Radiat Sci 2013; 60(3): 93–9. I read with interest this article which aims to evaluate productivity of radiographers and radiation therapists with regard to publications between 2004 and 2011 in four selected discipline-specific journals. The authors have provided a comprehensive analysis of author productivity and ranked the authors according to number of articles published in these journals within the given time period. While this approach may appear to showcase the productivity by some authors, overall it does, in my opinion, not accurately reflect publication and research activity by radiographers and radiation therapists, at least not in Australia. The predominant reason that underlies this belief is the fact that only three of the four journals selected for evaluation are indexed in any electronic search engines. (The author has stated that the journal Radiography is not listed on the ‘Scopus’ database. However, it does appear in Scopus, at least in 2013.) Most radiographers and radiation therapists select alternative journals and aim to publish in high-impact journals (relative to their discipline) and journals that can reach the most relevant readership efficiently. Radiography-specific journals commonly do not fulfil these criteria. Given the publication records of our radiography and radiation therapy collaborators, as well as our current and former research students, it is clear that the article by Snaith only delivers a very small snapshot within a highly selected group of journals that have no impact factors and are not disseminated widely. I acknowledge the difficulty in evaluating this topic; however, I am afraid that the conclusions of this article do not accurately convey the research contributions of an increasing number of research-active professionals in this field. In order to achieve due recognition and promote and disseminate the work of radiographers and radiation therapists, we need to ensure that these discipline-specific journals are indexed in electronic databases, have an impact factor, and are appropriately peer reviewed. Once we have achieved this, the quality of published work will improve, citations will increase and the h-indices will rise. All these will ultimately improve the profile of radiography and radiation therapy research.

Academic freedom—the freedom of professional persons to present unpopular views—can exist only when there is freedom from severe sanctions such as censorship of research proposals and papers. Peer reviews are invaluable to researchers struggling to improve their work. They are also invaluable to administrators who must allocate limited funds and journal pages among competing researchers. However, evidence indicates that some administrators use peer criticisms to justify the suppression in whole or part of unpopular proposals and papers. Such prior restraint is censorship unless the administrators can prove that it is justified because of gross incompetence or financial exigency.

Background Relapse is high in lifestyle interventions involving behavioural change and weight loss maintenance. The purpose of lifestyle self‐management interventions offered at Healthy Life Centres (HLCs) is to empower the participants, leading to self‐management and improved health. Exploring beneficial self‐management support and user involvement in HLCs is critical for quality, improving effectiveness and guiding approaches to lifestyle change support in overweight and obesity. Objective The aim of this study was to explore how persons afflicted by overweight or obesity attending lifestyle interventions in Norwegian HLCs experience beneficial self‐management support and user involvement. Method Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted with 13 service users (5 men and 8 women). Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results One main theme was identified: regaining self‐esteem and dignity through active involvement and long‐term self‐worth support in partnership with others. This main theme comprised four themes: (a) self‐efficacy through active involvement and better perceived health, (b) valued through health‐care professionals (HPs) acknowledgement, equality and individualized support, (c) increased motivation and self‐belief through fellowship and peer support; and (d) maintenance of lifestyle change through accessibility and long‐term support. Conclusion Service users’ active involvement, acknowledgement and long‐term self‐worth support from HPs and peers seem to support self‐management and user involvement and may be some of the successful ingredients to lifestyle change. However, prolonged follow‐up support is needed. A collectivistic and long‐term perspective can integrate the importance of significant others and shared responsibility.

BACKGROUND Microenterprises are very small businesses requiring little capital and can be an employment pathway for people with intellectual disabilities. This systematic review aims to identify the facilitators, barriers and outcomes from microenterprise. METHOD Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit, PsycINFO and ProQuest were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies on microenterprises owned by people with intellectual disability published up to and including 1 October 2019. RESULTS A total of 1080 papers were independently screened by two reviewers. Six papers met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included lack of access to business expertise and resources, and the tension between growing microenterprises and maintaining eligibility for welfare payments. Formal and informal supports were key facilitators. Outcomes experienced included additional income, skills development, increased confidence and engagement in meaningful activities. CONCLUSION Additional research is required to develop an evidence base which may support investment in this employment pathway, making microenterprise more accessible to people with intellectual disabilities.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Barbeito‐Caamaño, A, Chalmeta, R. Using big data to evaluate corporate social responsibility and sustainable development practices, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2006. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This paper shows an alternative method to evaluate sustainable development and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices based on the opinions of companies' stakeholders expressed on Twitter. An application of the method is performed with the Inditex textile group. This paper shows two important findings: (a) knowledge about companies' CSR practices and stakeholders opinions can be obtained using big data to analyse CSR information about the company on online social networks; and (b) there are important differences between the contents of the sustainability report of a company and the CSR opinions of its stakeholders on the internet. These findings have benefits for the company's stakeholders, who will be able to know the CSR practices of a company in a more objective way, and for the company, which will be able to improve its CSR performance and communication strategy, as well as the stakeholder engagement.

This paper focuses on sharing knowledge in early phases of system development. It introduces an interactive documentation tool called the Interactive Knowledge Architecture. The tool works as a knowledge base of the problem domain. We created the tool using Human‐Centered Design principles. The lack of an early common understanding of the problem domain can result in increased project costs. We have experienced that we need to focus on the human aspects of project execution to successfully achieve a common understanding among the project team members and customers. This paper presents the results of implementing the Interactive Knowledge Architecture in three system development projects. To study the tool's ability to meet the human aspects, we used an action research approach. The results of this research imply that the Interactive Knowledge Architecture offers a usable, accessible, and desirable way to document and share knowledge.

Transparency in reporting is essential to scientific progress. No report should be considered complete without a full account of uncertainties, including those due to natural variation and measurement and model error and those incurred by handling problematic data, such as outliers. We randomly selected 132 papers published in 2019 from a list of 100 scientific journals to characterize the current state of uncertainty reporting in ecosystem studies. Each paper was evaluated for the extent to which it reported measures of uncertainty in any of four topic areas common to ecosystem studies: vegetation, soils, precipitation, and surface water. We found that most papers reported a minority of the uncertainty sources we deemed relevant. Papers on surface water reported the highest fraction of uncertainty sources (averaging 47% ± 5%), followed by soils (45% ± 4%), vegetation (32% ± 4%), and precipitation (21% ± 8%). A greater fraction of relevant uncertainty sources were reported when the topics were the primary focus of the paper (44% ± 3%) than when they were not (32% ± 4%). Sampling error—the uncertainty in replicate measurements—was the source most commonly reported in studies of vegetation (84%), soil mass (56%), and surface water (76% of papers). The source of measurement error most often reported was chemical analysis, with 41% of papers on surface water and 75% of papers on precipitation reporting this source, if applicable. In contrast, only 1 of 12 papers reporting chemistry of vegetation provided information on analytical uncertainty. Fewer papers reported what methods were used for handling missing or unusable data and observations below detection limits, but it was difficult to judge whether these sources were relevant if they were not mentioned. Finally, we found that a minority of the papers made all (21%) or some (an additional 21%) of their data available in online repositories, after correcting for a failure rate of 13% of the links. Clearly, there is room for improving the completeness and transparency of scientific reporting in ecosystem studies.

Academic publishers purport to be arbiters of knowledge, aiming to publish studies that advance the frontiers of their research domain. Yet the effectiveness of journal editors at identifying novel and important research is generally unknown, in part because of the confidential nature of the editorial and peer review process. Using questionnaires, we evaluated the degree to which journals are effective arbiters of scientific impact on the domain of Ecology, quantified by three key criteria. First, journals discriminated against low‐impact manuscripts: The probability of rejection increased as the number of citations gained by the published paper decreased. Second, journals were more likely to publish high‐impact manuscripts (those that obtained citations in 90th percentile for their journal) than run‐of‐the‐mill manuscripts; editors were only 23% and 41% as likely to reject an eventual high‐impact paper (pre‐ versus postreview rejection) compared to a run‐of‐the‐mill paper. Third, editors did occasionally reject papers that went on to be highly cited. Error rates were low, however: Only 3.8% of rejected papers gained more citations than the median article in the journal that rejected them, and only 9.2% of rejected manuscripts went on to be high‐impact papers in the (generally lower impact factor) publishing journal. The effectiveness of scientific arbitration increased with journal prominence, although some highly prominent journals were no more effective than much less prominent ones. We conclude that the academic publishing system, founded on peer review, appropriately recognizes the significance of research contained in manuscripts, as measured by the number of citations that manuscripts obtain after publication, even though some errors are made. We therefore recommend that authors reduce publication delays by choosing journals appropriate to the significance of their research.

The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow‐up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs.

Since Hoggart and Mendoza's paper on ‘African immigrant workers in Spanish agriculture' in Sociologia Ruralis in 1999 there has been a proliferation of interest in labour migration to/ in rural Europe. It is now clear that the rural realm has been, and is being, transformed by immigration, and that low-wage migrant workers in the food production industry are playing a particularly prominent role in this transformation. This paper takes stock of the literature and identifies seven key issues associated with low-wage labour migration, contemporary food production, and rural change. Most notably, since the 1990s, there has been growing demand for migrants in the segmented, and sometimes exploitative, labour markets of the European food production industries. This demand has been met across a variety of contexts, with states and labour market intermediaries playing a largely supportive role. However, migrants' integration into rural communities has often been problematic, with the emphasis being on the need for, rather than needs of, low-wage migrant workers.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is a growing body of evidence that many people with an autism spectrum condition suffer anxiety in their daily life and a realization among practitioners that admission to a mental health unit for this population is usually a negative anxiety-inducing experience. Anxiety is driven by the intolerance of uncertainty that is being unsure of what is going to happen, how long the uncertainty will exist and the insistence of sameness which, when compromised, can be anxiety provoking. Equally, confusion in understanding personal emotional responses and those of others is a source of anxiety. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This paper builds upon existing understanding of anxiety as a causative factor of mental ill-health for people with an autism spectrum condition. Specifically, this paper explores the potentially anxiety-inducing experience of mental health unit admission; how anxiety is felt, triggered, expressed and managed. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: As many different anxiety responses could be exhibited during hospitalization, including violent acts and self-harming, for mental health practitioners working in the inpatient units, it is essential that the thoughts, feelings and responses of the patient with an autistic spectrum condition (ASC) are better understood and that support offered during their stay in a mental health facility is from an informed position.Background This qualitative study explored how mental health inpatients with autistic spectrum conditions (ASCs) experience and cope with anxiety when admitted to an acute mental health inpatient facility in the United Kingdom. Anxiety is a common characteristic for people who live with ASCs and whilst a plethora of studies on anxiety in this population is published which correlate anxiety with mental health service experience, little is known about the actual triggers of anxiety and its manifestations. This study adds to a body of evidence which considers anxiety experienced by people with autism. The rationale for this study includes the need to heighten mental health practitioners' understanding, of the responses, motivations to engage and support required to overcome fears and anxieties when admitted to a mental health inpatient unit. Method The study used a qualitative naturalistic research design, to explore the emotional and psychological experiences of being a mental health inpatient living with an ASC. During 2015-2017. audio-recorded semistructured interviews captured the experiences of 20 adults from the east of England who were former psychiatric inpatients with an established diagnosis of ASC. Interpretative phenomenological analysis enabled the identification of broad themes which explained in rich detail, participant reflections regarding the situations and events within the acute care mental health facility that triggered their anxiety, manifestations of anxiety and responses to their anxiety. Findings Broad response patterns were identified that could be associated with their anxiety that is isolating themselves from others, including patients and staff, ceasing to eat and sleep adequately and all too often self-harming or exhibiting aggressive and violent responses. Conclusions The anxiety caused by the physical environment appears to be overlooked by mental health practitioners so attention to anxiety-inducing encounters is needed when planning acute care mental health service improvement and research is required to clearly understand the experiences of this vulnerable group.

Purpose When evaluating safety signals, there is often interest in understanding safety in all patients for whom compared treatments are reasonable alternatives, as well as in specific subgroups of interest. There are numerous ways that propensity score (PS) matching can be implemented for subgroup analyses. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of methods papers that compared the performance of alternative methods to implement PS matched subgroup analyses and examined how frequently different PS matching methods have been used for subgroup analyses in applied studies. Results We identified 5 methods papers reporting small improvements in covariate balance and bias with use of a subgroup-specific PS instead of a mis-specified overall PS within subgroups. Applied research papers frequently used PS for subgroups in ways not evaluated in methods papers. Thirty three percent used PS to match in the overall cohort and broke the matched sets for subgroup analysis without further adjustment. Conclusions While the performance of several alternative ways to use PS matching in subgroup analyses has been evaluated in methods literature, these evaluations do not include the most commonly used methods to implement PS matched subgroup analyses in applied studies. There is a need to better understand the relative performance of commonly used methods for PS matching in subgroup analyses, particularly within settings encountered during active surveillance, where there may be low exposure, infrequent outcomes, and multiple subgroups of interest.

This paper reports on the development and the psychometric properties of short forms of Ambivalent Sexism Scales toward women (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and men (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999), and a scale measuring rape stereotypes (IRMA; McMahon & Farmer, 2011). The short form AMI/ASI were applied for examining gender and educational differences in university students (N = 512) and in high school students (N = 1381), and for predicting individual differences in rape stereotypes in the latter. The short forms demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties across samples of emerging adults. Relative to female students, male students reported markedly more hostility toward women and more stereotypical beliefs about rape. Despite sampling from a highly gender egalitarian and secular culture, these gender differences are on a par with those reported internationally. Rape stereotypes were predicted by sexism in high school students. Additional predictors were educational program, relationship status, and acceptance of derogatory sexual slurs. The paper questions the validity of separate constructs for benevolent sexism toward women versus men. The short form versions of the scales may substitute the original versions in future research, and help prevent attrition while measuring the same constructs. This is the authors' manuscript to the article (preprint).

Introduction Health professionals are frequently exposed to traumatic events due to the nature of their work. While traumatic and adverse labour and birth events experienced by women are well researched, less attention has been given to midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of these events and the impact it has on their lives. Aim To undertake a meta-ethnographic study of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences of adverse labour and birth events. Methods Scopus, CINHAL PLUS, MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched using subject headings and keywords. The search was limited to papers published in peer reviewed journals from 2004 to October 2016. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Inclusion criteria Papers had to be qualitative or have a substantial qualitative component. Studies were included if they primarily focused on midwives’ or nurses’ perspectives or experiences of complicated, traumatic or adverse labour and birth events. Analytic strategy A meta-ethnographic approach was used incorporating methods of reciprocal translation guided by the work of Noblit and Hare (1988). Findings Eleven qualitative studies were included in the final sample. Four major themes 1) feeling the chaos 2) powerless, responsible and a failure 3) “It adds another scar to my soul” and 4) finding a way to deal with it. Conclusion Midwives and nurses feel relatively unprepared when faced with a real life labour and birth emergency event. While many of the midwives and nurses were traumatised by the experience, some were able to view their encounter as an opportunity to develop their emergency response skills. Relevance to clinical practice Witnessing and being involved in a complicated or adverse labour and birth event can be traumatic for nurses and midwives. Organisational and collegial support needs to be available to enable these health professionals to talk about their feelings and concerns. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This paper presents selected findings from the first year of a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. Specifically, the aims of the paper are to show: (1) how much experience and knowledge ECRs had of peer review – both as authors and as reviewers; (2) what they felt the benefits were and what suggestions they had for improvement; (3) what they thought of open peer review (OPR); and (4) who they felt should organize peer review. Data were obtained from 116 science and social science ECRs, most of whom had published and were subject to in-depth interviews conducted face-to-face, via Skype, or over the telephone. An extensive literature review was also conducted to provide a context and supplementary data for the findings. The main findings were that: (1) most ECRS are well informed about peer review and generally like the experience, largely because of the learning experiences obtained; (2) they like blind double-peer review, but would like some improvements, especially with regards to reviewer quality; (3) most are uncomfortable with the idea of OPR; and (4) most would like publishers to continue organizing peer review because of their perceived independence.

Transparency in science is an increasingly important topic and it is clear that this is also important to our readers. Taking inspiration from the 2017 Peer Review Week (https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/) theme of transparency, in this editorial, we look at the different ways that we have introduced openness and transparency in the publication process and more widely in journal practices. In 2016, we introduced author contribution statements in all published papers and offered a new data sources section for papers containing meta-analyses to enable the data sources to receive proper citation credit within the main article. Our efforts in 2017 range from giving a clear and transparent breakdown of the peer review process for the Journal (http://bit.ly/BESReviewProcess) to larger initiatives such as an open call for new Associate Editors, more on this below.

Summary Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively. In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process. Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014. Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors. There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review. Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process. Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions. A Lay Summary is available for this article.

Aims To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. Design Discussion paper. Methods This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. Results There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Responsive feeding has been identified as important in preventing overconsumption by infants. However, this is predicated on an assumption that parents recognise and respond to infant feeding cues. Despite this, relatively little is understood about how infants engage parental feeding responses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify what is known about infant communication of hunger and satiation and what issues impact on the expression and perception of these states. A search of Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Maternal and Infant care produced 27 papers. Eligibility criteria included peer reviewed qualitative and/or quantitative publications on feeding behaviours, hunger, and satiation/satiety cues of typically developing children in the first 2 years of life. Papers published between 1966 and 2013 were included in the review. The review revealed that feeding cues and behaviours are shaped by numerous issues, such as infants' physical attributes, individual psychological factors and environmental factors. Meanwhile, infant characteristics, external cues and mothers' own characteristics affect how feeding cues are perceived. The existing literature provides insights into many aspects of hunger and satiation in infancy; however, there are significant gaps in our knowledge. There is a lack of validated tools for measuring hunger and satiation, a need to understand how different infant characteristics impact on feeding behaviour and a need to extricate the respective contributions of infant and maternal characteristics to perceptions of hunger and satiation. Further research is also recommended to differentiate between feeding driven by liking and that driven by hunger.

The classical view of peer review is that it is our primary process for assessing and judging whether research results should be published in a scholarly journal. However, the increased pressure to publish and technological developments are transforming peer review such that it is becoming a system that judges where work is published rather than whether the research is publishable (a ‘where rather than if’ process). Ecology is a field in which publication numbers puts a particular pressure on the review system. In this forum piece, I summarize the issues with the current publication system and discuss how technology is changing it, while suggesting solutions for important prior and ongoing issues with the peer review system. The view explored here is that technological developments (e.g. ease of creating journals, internet sites, storage, data generation, sharing of data and analytical code) will not eliminate peer review per se but will allow for a new set of parameters in which ethics and the optimal use of public funding will play a vital role in the evolution of the review process. Synthesis The number of papers and journals in Ecology has increased dramatically in the past decade. I present a critical overview of our review system and proposes that pressure to publish and technological developments have transformed peer review into a system that decides “where rather than if” papers are publishable. While reviewing the current pressures and factors playing a vital role in the evolution of the review and publication systems, I propose potential solutions to deal with current and future challenges to the peer review and publication systems.

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected

Aims and objectives This systematic review aims to synthesise the existing research on how patients participate in patient safety initiatives. Background Ambiguities remain about how patients participate in routine measures designed to promote patient safety. Design Systematic review using integrative methods. Methods Electronic databases were searched using keywords describing patient involvement, nursing input and patient safety initiatives to retrieve empirical research published between 2007 and 2013. Findings were synthesized using the theoretical domains of Vincent's framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical practice: “patient”, “healthcare provider”, “task”, “work environment”, “organisation & management”. Results We identified 17 empirical research papers: four qualitative, one mixed-method and 12 quantitative designs. All 17 papers indicated that patients can participate in safety initiatives. Conclusions Improving patient participation in patient safety necessitates considering the patient as a person, the nurse as healthcare provider, the task of participation and the clinical environment. Patients' knowledge, health conditions, beliefs and experiences influence their decisions to engage in patient safety initiatives. An important component of the management of long-term conditions is to ensure that patients have sufficient knowledge to participate. Healthcare providers may need further professional development in patient education and patient care management to promote patient involvement in patient safety, and ensure that patients understand that they are ‘allowed’ to inform nurses of adverse events or errors. A healthcare system characterised by patient-centredness and mutual acknowledgement will support patient participation in safety practices. Further research is required to improve international knowledge of patient participation in patient safety in different disciplines, contexts and cultures. Relevance to clinical practice Patients have a significant role to play in enhancing their own safety while receiving hospital care. This review offers a framework for clinicians to develop comprehensive practical guidelines to support patient involvement in patient safety.

Progress in ecological research is basically driven by the publication of studies in peer reviewed journals. However, competition for space in high-ranking journals is severe, and these journals require an objective way to accept the best works. This “objective way” is based on the traditional peer review process. To evaluate the quality of a manuscript, it is sent to several specialists in the same field, and the editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and his/her own opinion. Overall, in a good peer review process everybody wins: the author improves her/his knowledge, and the scientific community reads a better paper; even if the manuscript is finally submitted to a different journal. However, more and more ecological journals are skipping this fruitful process and rejecting some papers based only on the opinion of one person: the subject-editor. This practice is becoming more common despite criticisms related to its subjectivity and inappropriateness (Farji-Brener 2007, Bornmann and Hans-Dieter 2010, Arnqvist 2013). The key argument to favor rejections without peer review is that subject-editors (hereafter “editors”) are able to easily identify the best works among the submitted manuscripts (Strong 2007). Therefore, editors reject papers that “definitively” would have received negative revisions if they were sent to reviewers. In other words, editors are considering themselves as good “oracles” in the task of guessing the opinion of external reviewers about the quality of a manuscript. We tested this assumption by monitoring the final destiny of a large number of papers that were first rejected without revisions by an editor. Fil: Farji Brener, Alejandro Gustavo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina Fil: Kitzberger, Thomas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Comahue; Argentina

This large-scale international study measures the attitudes of more than 4,000 researchers toward peer review. In 2009, 40,000 authors of research papers from across the globe were invited to complete an online survey. Researchers were asked to rate a number of general statements about peer review, and then a subset of respondents, who had themselves peer reviewed, rated a series of statements concerning their experience of peer review. The study found that the peer review process is highly regarded by the vast majority of researchers and considered by most to be essential to the communication of scholarly research. Nine out of 10 authors believe that peer review improved the last paper they published. Double-blind peer review is considered the most effective form of peer review. Nearly three quarters of researchers think that technological advances are making peer review more effective. Most researchers believe that although peer review should identify fraud, it is very difficult for it to do so. Reviewers are committed to conducting peer review in the future and believe that simple practical steps, such as training new reviewers would further improve peer review. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Minimally invasive approaches to radical prostatectomy have been touted to lead to superior surgical and functional outcomes with less potential complications despite scant and often conflicting reports in the peer reviewed literature. This review provides evidence that the minimally invasive prostatectomy literature still fails to meet the standards and critical benchmarks necessary for adequate complications reporting. Given our current release on observational studies. Increased effects should be made to standardize all complications and functional outcomes reporting for minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery. To query the minimally invasive urological literature from 2006 to the middle of 2010, focusing on complications and functional outcome reporting in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted LRP (RALP), to see if there has been an improvement in the overall reporting of complications. We performed a Medline search using the Medical Subject Heading terms ‘prostatectomy’, ‘laparoscopy’, ‘robotics’, and ‘minimally invasive’. We then applied the Martin criteria for complications reporting to the selected articles. We identified 51 studies for a total of 32 680 patients. When excluding functional outcomes the outpatient complications reporting was 20/51 (39.2%). In all, 35% and 43% of papers did not list any method for recording continence and potency, respectively. A complication grading system was only used in 30 studies (58.8%). Of the 16 papers using a grading scale in 2006–2007, only 31.3% used the Clavien system, compared with 69% from 2008 to the first half of 2010. In all, 27% of papers used some form of risk-factor analysis for complications. Multivariate analysis was used in 43% of papers, 29% looked at body mass index, while one looked at prostate weight, and another age. There has been an overall improvement in complications reporting in the minimally invasive RP literature since 2005. However, most studies still do not fulfil many of the criteria necessary for standardised complication reporting. Functional outcome reporting remains poor and unstandardised. Given our current reliance on observational studies, increased efforts should be made to standardise all complication outcomes reporting.

Summary 1. Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process (Statzner & Resh, Freshwater Biology, 2010; 55, 2639) to generate discussion, particularly among early career researchers (ECRs). As a group of eight ECRs, we comment on the six trends they described. 2. We generally agree with most of the trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010), but also highlight a number of divergent perspectives and provide recommendations for change. Trends of particular concern are the use of inappropriate metrics to evaluate research quality (e.g. impact factor) and the salami slicing of papers to increase paper count. We advocate a transparent and comprehensive system for evaluating the research. 3. We stress the importance of impartiality and independence in the peer review process. We therefore suggest implementation of double-blind review and quality control measures for reviewers and possibly editors. Besides such structural changes, editors should be confident to overrule biased reviewer recommendations, while reviewers should provide helpful reviews but be explicit if a submission does not meet quality standards. Authors should always conduct a thorough literature search and acknowledge historical scientific ideas and methods. Additionally, authors should report low-quality copy editing and reviews to the editors. 4. Both early and late career researchers should jointly implement these recommendations to reverse the negative trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010). However, more senior scientists will always have to take the lead with respect to structural changes in the publication system given that they occupy the majority of decision-making positions.

Keywords:boundary work;AIDS denialism;sociology of science;peer review;scientific community Abstract This paper explores the boundary work undertaken by HIV scientists and activists against the journal Medical Hypotheses over its lack of peer review. Their action was sparked by the publication of an article by Peter Duesberg claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and that antiretrovirals do more harm than good. Precisely because such �AIDS denialism� can undermine HIV prevention and treatment interventions, as was demonstrably the case in South Africa under President Mbeki, the episode raised questions about when, in the interests of public health, the boundaries of legitimate scientific debate may be drawn to exclude unreasonable and unscholarly arguments. The paper argues that normative concerns motivated the complaints which resulted in the publisher withdrawing Duesberg�s paper and imposing editorial policy changes on Medical Hypotheses. Concerns were raised about the implications for academic freedom of this boundary work in defence of peer review as a core practice in science. The paper concludes, however, that Duesberg�s freedom to write what he likes remains intact, but that if he wants his work to carry the imprimatur of science, he now has to subject it to peer review

Accessible summary • One in four people with a severe learning disability harm themselves. • This affects their health and quality of life. • This study looks at research on helping people who harm themselves. • More research needs to be done to find better ways of helping people who harm themselves. Summary Estimates suggest that up to one quarter of people who have a severe learning disability engage in self injurious behaviour (SIB). SIB poses serious risks, both to the person’s physical health and their quality of life. Behavioural approaches have made a contribution to supporting people who engage in SIB, although the last review of these approaches was completed in 2001. The current study provides an update to this review, and has considered papers published over the last 10 years. A systematic search of peer reviewed journals and the ‘grey’ literature identified 34 relevant documents, the majority of which were single case studies. These papers tended to report only on changes in the frequency of SIB during the intervention; one cannot conclude, therefore, about the long term efficacy and generalisability of these approaches. Reductions in SIB were highly variable, often produced in controlled environments and with the use of aversive interventions. The current study presents implications for research and clinical practice and highlights the need for more research reporting on the effectiveness of new interventions such as positive behavioural support.

Aim Most consultants participating as referees in the peer review process of papers submitted to scholarly journals have had no training or tuition. This study attempted to evaluate the effect on reviewing of a half-day course held at the Royal Society of Medicine. Method Registered consultant delegates were sent two ‘doctored’ papers, a case report and an original paper, well before the meeting to review at home using the standard computerized score sheet issued with referee requests by Colorectal Disease. At the start of the meeting the scores were entered into a computer as ‘Before’. After each paper had been presented and then discussed, it was re-marked to give the ‘After’ score. The Before and After scores were compared with the post-meeting feedback forms. Results The Before and After scores provided by the participants for the two papers each reviewed were not significantly different for the questions relating to the publication/rejection decision. The Before score was higher than the After score for questions relating to the Abstract, Introduction and Method sections. Feedback forms regarding the tuition were universally positive and appreciative. Conclusion Consultants already have the expertise to decide whether a paper should be rejected. The study day appears to give an additional insight that may change an initial opinion. In general a paper scored before the meeting was scored lower after it was presented and discussed at the meeting (the tuition).

Those that follow the ins and outs of scientific publishing will be aware that there are periodic cries of ‘is peer review broken?’ Criticisms include that, by its very nature, it is biased, and that it maintains the status quo, making it difficult for those with unorthodox views or new researchers to get published. Another criticism is that the process takes too long and slows publication – and therefore the advancement – of science down. These criticisms were explored at the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication and the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) conference, both held in Chicago earlier this month. But what peer review is trying to achieve is challenging, and, as yet, no-one has come up with an alternative that is any better. The point of peer review is to evaluate, fairly and without bias, research papers for their contribution to the science base. It should assess each element of a paper and its suitability for inclusion in the journal. Reviewers give comments on the methodology and statistics used, highlight any ethical concerns and give constructive comments to improve the paper. They may also give an assessment, depending on the journal, of how significant the findings are – in our journals we ask that they grade manuscripts on this aspect. Each type of peer review, …

Objective To critically appraise a recent study on the safety of home birth (Mori R, Dougherty M, Whittle M. BJOG 2008;115:554) and assess its contribution to the debate about risks and benefits of planned home birth for women at low risk of complications. Design Critical appraisal of a published paper. Setting England and Wales. Population or Sample Home births from 1994–2003 and all women giving birth in the same time period. Methods Six members of a multidisciplinary group appraised the paper independently. Comments were collated and synthesised. Main outcome measures Assessment of: overall methodology; assumptions used in estimating figures; methods used for calculations; conclusions drawn from the results and reliability and consistency of data. Results Although there were some positive aspects to the study, there were weaknesses in design and an inaccurate estimate of risk. Our evidence suggests that the conclusions drawn did not reflect the results and the methodological weaknesses found in the study rendered both the results and conclusions invalid. Conclusions On the basis of our critical appraisal, the study does not contribute to the existing evidence about the safety of home birth to inform decision-making or provision of care. The limitations could have been identified by the peer review process and the problems were compounded by an inaccurate press release. Great care needs to be taken by journals to ensure the accuracy of information before dissemination to the scientific community, clinicians and the public. These data should not have been used to inform national guidelines.

Although many professions practice some type of formal peer review, similar support for increasing the quality and efficiency of instructional design products is largely informal. Most designers develop solutions in professional eommunilies-of-practice, but formal design methodologies ordained by many corporations and instructional design schools do not account for the strong influence these communities have on design decisions. This paper describes an instructional design review process that is modeled after a widely accepted practice among software developers in which peers offer feedback through “structured walkthroughs.” The instructional design review helps the practitioner develop stronger designs more quickly. provides a means to scaffold the novice designer in the vagaries of the workplace, and improves organizational memory. An artifact of a design review as well as guidelines and success factors are presented. The paper provides a summary of a formal peer review structure that has been developed and tested over the past three years at a major corporation.

This review summarises nutrition and mental health research in Australia and New Zealand between 1986 and 2006. The method used to identify papers for inclusion was a search of computerised databases: Medline, Cinahl and Meditext 1986–2006, with subsequent bibliographical review. Key search words were nutrition, diet, mental disorder, mental illness, weight, physical health, Australia and New Zealand. Inclusion criteria included: English language, original data in peer reviewed journals, and examination of some component of nutrition in people with a mental illness. The review of thirteen papers found that the evidence base for dietetic practice in mental health has developed through small assessment and interventional research, often with multidisciplinary collaboration. Future research should include quality and outcome measures with intersectoral partnerships. Dietitians are well positioned to lead and participate in mental health research and to implement research findings to improve the nutritional status of this vulnerable group.

Contrary to the simplistic myth that eating disorders are the result of a tendency to adopt the Western beauty standard of being slim and thin, the symptoms have been found to symbolize the struggles of adolescents and their development in a rapidly changing society, and in particular, to illuminate the continual conflicts inherent in the afflicted adolescents, their families and the accepted societal values and norms. This paper reports the results of a qualitative study conducted in Shenzhen, the first Special Economic Zone in China that has experienced rapid economic growth and a significant population increase from 314 100 to 6 million in the past two decades. With an aim to identify the meanings of eating disorders at the individual and family levels, this study has employed a multiple-case study research design. Data have been collected through peer reviews on the family treatment sessions for 10 families, each with an adolescent daughter suffering from eating disorders, and with the sessions being videotaped with written consent from the families. Two themes evolved from the family narratives, namely the adolescents' attempt to master the uncontrollable life in facing the rapid transition of society, and their struggle between remaining young and growing up. Implications for family education in Shenzhen are discussed at the end of the paper.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Contín-Pilart, I. and Larraza-Kintana, M. (2015), Do Entrepreneurial Role Models Influence the Nascent Entrepreneurial Activity of Immigrants? Journal of Small Business Management, 53: 1146–1163, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/jsbm.12153. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. This paper examines how the influence of entrepreneurial role models in the individual’s decision to become a nascent entrepreneur is moderated by their socio-cultural fit. By looking at the entrepreneurial activity of immigrants, the paper proposes that, because of their lower sociocultural fit, immigrants are less likely to be influenced in their entrepreneurial activity by past and present entrepreneurs in the region where they live compared with the native population. Using a large database of 28,306 individuals in 50 Spanish provinces, the results confirm our hypothesis. The moderating effect of cultural distance and time of residence is also analyzed. The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the Government of Navarra through its Employment Service (Servicio Navarro de Empleo). Financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (projects ECO2010-21242-C03-03 and ECO2010-21393-C04-03) is also acknowledged

This virtual monograph celebrates the 50 th anniversary of the Journal of Community Psychology (JoCP) by reprinting selected commentaries and peer-reviewed papers from JoCP's initial decade. Selected articles focused on the originating goals and priorities of the discipline of community psychology. Each article is followed by reflections. The monograph final section challenges contemporary discipline leaders to identify goals for the coming decades and milestones for measuring progress in their achievement.

Among the many steps involved in publishing a professional paper, peer review of the submitted manuscript presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Peer review is essential to ensuring that published papers meet appropriate research, scholarship and journal criteria. Peer review is also a valuable resource, providing detailed, professional evaluations that help authors carry out and present scholarship of the highest quality. When combined with the commitment of the Journal of Genetic Counseling to encourage and mentor authors, it is also a resource for developing writing skills.

The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how to write a good peer review. The paper provided defintions of peer reviews and blind reviews. It also provides an understanding of what to include in a peer review. Moreover, it recommends how to write a qualitative and quantitative peer review and different factors to avoid. The paper also illustrates how to write a review for a conceptual article. The paper concludes on how the peer review process contributes to scholarship and how the process makes a difference.

The quality of the care provided to frail older people in aged care is a concern for all Australians and for the citizens of many other countries internationally. This paper summarizes the methods and findings from an Australian study commissioned by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to identify and synthesize international literature relating to the quality of care in aged care. A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to search and identify the literature (grey and peer reviewed) relating to quality of care and/or person-centered care in aged care. The review identified nine key themes as salient to the quality of care experience, which include treating the older person with respect and dignity; acknowledging and supporting their spiritual, cultural, religious and sexual identity; the skills and training of the aged care staff providing care; relationships between the older person and the aged care staff; social relationships and the community; supporting the older person to make informed choices; supporting the older person's health and well-being; ensuring the delivery of safe care in a comfortable service environment; and the ability to make complaints and provide feedback to the aged care organization. In practice, particularly in the context of residential care, quality of care has traditionally been measured using clinical indicators of care quality. These findings highlight the central importance of person-centered care and care experience as fundamental tenets of the quality of aged care service delivery in Australia and internationally. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 765-778.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Casado, J., Muga, L. and Santamaria, R. (2013), The effect of US holidays on the European markets: when the cat’s away…. Accounting & Finance, 53: 111–136, which has been published in final form at doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00460.x. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. This paper presents evidence of the existence of a return effect on European stock markets coinciding with NYSE holidays, which is particularly marked after positive closing returns on the NYSE the previous day. The effect is large enough to be exploited by trading index futures. This anomaly can not be explained by seasonal effects, such as the day of the week effect, the January effect or the pre-holiday effect, nor is it consistent with behavioral finance models that predict positive correlation between trading volume and returns. However, examination of factors such as information volume or investor mix provides a reasonable explanation. This paper has received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (ECO2009-12819).

Presently, the scores of three to four reviewers of each abstract are averaged and form a major component of the input for decisions made in choosing papers for oral and poster presentations, and in rejecting others. No normalization is made for differences in either mean or standard deviation between the reviewers of the same abstracts. In this paper, several techniques for normalizing the scores of reviewers are examined, and the consequences of applying such normalization is to several categories of the 1994 abstract submissions are examined. It was found that some alterations in the acceptance and assignments of papers as oral and posters resulted for one of the categories, and the normalized scores were used during the program assembly. It is recommended that future review procedures utilize reviewer normalization.

Selective publication and reporting in individual papers compromise the scientific record, but are meta-analyses as compromised as their constituent studies? We systematically sampled 63 meta-analyses (each comprising at least 40 studies) in PLoS One, top medical journals, top psychology journals, and Metalab, an online, open-data database of developmental psychology meta-analyses. We empirically estimated publication bias in each, including only the peer-reviewed studies. Across all meta-analyses, we estimated that “statistically significant” results in the expected direction were only 1.17 times more likely to be published than “nonsignificant” results or those in the unexpected direction (95% CI: [0.93, 1.47]), with a confidence interval substantially overlapping the null. Comparable estimates were 0.83 for meta-analyses in PLoS One, 1.02 for top medical journals, 1.54 for top psychology journals, and 4.70 for Metalab. The severity of publication bias did differ across individual meta-analyses; in a small minority (10%; 95% CI: [2%, 21%]), publication bias appeared to favor “significant” results in the expected direction by more than threefold. We estimated that for 89% of meta-analyses, the amount of publication bias that would be required to attenuate the point estimate to the null exceeded the amount of publication bias estimated to be actually present in the vast majority of meta-analyses from the relevant scientific discipline (exceeding the 95th percentile of publication bias). Study-level measures (“statistical significance” with a point estimate in the expected direction and point estimate size) did not indicate more publication bias in higher-tier versus lower-tier journals, nor in the earliest studies published on a topic versus later studies. Overall, we conclude that the mere act of performing a meta-analysis with a large number of studies (at least 40) and that includes non-headline results may largely mitigate publication bias in meta-analyses, suggesting optimism about the validity of meta-analytic results.

This paper analyses the role of universities as orchestrators of the development of a regional ecosystem that is conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship. We argue that universities in emerging economies, due to many social challenges, must go beyond their missions of teaching, research, and collaboration with industry for innovation. We present a unique case study of an alliance of three universities in Porto Alegre, Brazil that, in addition to being competitors in the above‐mentioned missions, are orchestrating a network of stakeholders in this region to develop an ecosystem for innovation and entrepreneurship. We demonstrate that universities perform several orchestration processes that are consistent with the literature, such as fostering knowledge mobility, managing innovation appropriability, and increasing network stability. Furthermore, we found differences in how innovation ecosystems are orchestrated as compared to firm networks. In the case of innovation ecosystems, appropriability reaches the broader region, and the benefits are not limited to participant stakeholders. Such orchestration processes emerge when universities take on leadership positions in the region; they can influence the beginning of collective actions and projects as well as transfer responsibility, delegating power to other actors in the network.

Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the proportion of publications arising from work presented at a regional surgical meeting. Design A list of all presentations to the Welsh Surgical Society 1983–95 was compiled and a detailed search made of the Medline Database. The surgical topic of each presentation, the date of presentation, the date of publication and the journal of publication were recorded. Setting University Hospital of Wales. Results Four hundred and ninety-six papers were presented to the society, of which 402 (81%) were by trainees. The most frequent topics of presentation were colorectal (15%), vascular (15%) and hepato–pancreatico–biliary (11%). Two hundred and thirty-three papers (47%) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The most popular journals for publication were Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (19%), British Journal of Surgery (16%) and Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (8%). The median time from presentation to publication was 17·0 months (interquartile range 10·0–27·5 months). Conclusions Regional surgical meetings have an important role in the annual surgical calendar and they are the ideal initial setting for presentation by trainees.

This paper explores how more or less relationally oriented forms of professional practices could be expressed in collaborations between young people living with bodily impairments and their multiprofessional teams. The analysis was based on life-mode interviews with young people (16– 20 years), individual and focus group interviews with the professionals and participant observation in team meetings. Drawing on sociocultural perspectives on participation and the workings of power, different discourses, subject positions and participatory strategies were recognised and related to the participation of the young people. Finally, the relevance of the findings for practice is reflected on in a participation rights perspective.

Background Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals. Objectives To estimate the effect of processes in editorial peer review. Search methods The following databases were searched to June 2004: CINAHL, Ovid, Cochrane Methodology Register, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: ACP Journal Club, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed. Selection criteria We included prospective or retrospective comparative studies with two or more comparison groups, generated by random or other appropriate methods, and reporting original research, regardless of publication status. We hoped to find studies identifying good submissions on the basis of: importance of the topic dealt with, relevance of the topic to the journal, usefulness of the topic, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of reporting. Data collection and analysis Because of the diversity of study questions, viewpoints, methods, and outcomes, we carried out a descriptive review of included studies grouping them by broad study question. Main results We included 28 studies. We found no clear-cut evidence of effect of the well-researched practice of reviewer and/or author concealment on the outcome of the quality assessment process (9 studies). Checklists and other standardisation media have some evidence to support their use (2 studies). There is no evidence that referees' training has any effect on the quality of the outcome (1 study). Different methods of communicating with reviewers and means of dissemination do not appear to have an effect on quality (3 studies). On the basis of one study, little can be said about the ability of the peer-review process to detect bias against unconventional drugs. Validity of peer review was tested by only one small study in a specialist area. Editorial peer review appears to make papers more readable and improve the general quality of reporting (2 studies), but the evidence for this has very limited generalisability. Authors' conclusions At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.