Misplaced Pages

#330669

75-614: The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, published by BMJ Group, which in turn is wholly-owned by the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA. It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Previously called the British Medical Journal , the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014. The journal

150-529: A monograph or in the proceedings of an academic conference . If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review. Medical peer review may be distinguished in four classifications: Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to

225-399: A brief case report under her husband's name John which suggested a condition known as " cello scrotum ", a fictional condition that supposedly affected male cellists. It was originally submitted as a joke in response to "guitar nipple", a condition similar to jogger's nipple in which some forms of guitar playing causes irritation to the nipple, which Murphy and her husband believed was also

300-481: A certain threshold, and effective peer review requires a certain level of expertise. For non-professional writers, peer review feedback may be overlooked, thereby affecting its effectiveness. Elizabeth Ellis Miller, Cameron Mozafari, Justin Lohr and Jessica Enoch state, "While peer review is an integral part of writing classrooms, students often struggle to effectively engage in it." The authors illustrate some reasons for

375-438: A condition of peer review remains controversial. In 2020 peer review lack of access to raw data led to article retractions in prestigious The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet . Many journals now require access to raw data to be included in peer review. These publishers and journals operate various types of open peer review: Peer review at The BMJ , BioMed Central , EMBO, eLife , ReScience C , and

450-430: A form of popularity contest in which well known authors are more likely to get their manuscripts reviewed than others. However, even with this implementation of Open Peer Reviews, both authors and reviewers acknowledged that Open Reviews could lead to a higher quality of reviews, foster collaborations and reduce the "cite-me" effect. According to a 2020 Nature editorial, experience from Nature Communications negates

525-557: A fundamental process in academic and professional writing, serving as a systematic means to ensure the quality, effectiveness, and credibility of scholarly work. However, despite its widespread use, it is one of the most scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction. Many scholars questioning its effectiveness and specific methodologies. Critics of peer review in classrooms express concerns about its ineffectiveness due to students' lack of practice in giving constructive criticism or their limited expertise in

600-525: A joke. The case report was published in The BMJ, and although not widely cited, it was cited occasionally, often by sceptics, because, for example, "when the cello is held in typical playing position, the body of the instrument is not near the scrotum." In 2009, 35 years after the original case report was published, Murphy wrote a letter to The BMJ revealing that the report had been a hoax. The BMJ went fully online in 1995 and archived all its issues on

675-415: A longitudinal study comparing two groups of students (one majoring in writing and one not) to explore students' perceptions of authority. This research, involving extensive analysis of student texts, concludes that students majoring in non-writing fields tend to undervalue mandatory peer review in class, while those majoring in writing value classmates' comments more. This reflects that peer review feedback has

750-501: A means of critiquing each other's work, peer review is often framed as a way to build connection between students and help develop writers' identity. While widely used in English and composition classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines that require writing as part of the curriculum including the social and natural sciences . Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their work, and

825-628: A number of overseas/ foreign language editions: Argentine (in Spanish), Greek, Romanian, Chinese, and Middle Eastern (in English). There is also the Student BMJ , an online resource for medical students and junior doctors, which publishes an annual print edition each September. The BMJ offers several alerting services, free on request: Peer review Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as

SECTION 10

#1732764901331

900-520: A report of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association's Eastern Branch. Other pages included a condensed version of Henry Warburton 's medical reform bill, book reviews, clinical papers, and case notes. There were 2 + 1 ⁄ 2 columns of advertisements. Inclusive of stamp duty it cost 7d, a price that remained until 1844. In their main article, Green and Streeten noted that they had "received as many advertisements (in proportion to

975-590: A signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (commonly known as the Dora Agreement ), which deprecates the inappropriate use of journal impact factors and urges journal publishers to "greatly reduce the emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting it in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics." In 1974, Elaine Murphy submitted

1050-691: A subscription. The BMJ allows complete free access for visitors from economically disadvantaged countries as part of the HINARI initiative. In October 2008 The BMJ announced that it would become an open access journal for research articles. A subscription continued to be required for access to other articles. The BMJ is principally an online journal, and only the website carries the full text content of every article. However, print editions are produced, targeting different groups of readers with selections of content, some of it abridged, and different advertising. The print editions are: The BMJ also publishes

1125-448: A time and given an amount of time to present the topic that they have researched. Each speaker may or may not talk about the same topic but each speaker has something to gain or lose which can foster a competitive atmosphere. This approach allows speakers to present in a more personal tone while trying to appeal to the audience while explaining their topic. Peer seminars may be somewhat similar to what conference speakers do, however, there

1200-583: A versioned article system. At F1000Research , articles are published before review, and invited peer review reports (and reviewer names) are published with the article as they come in. Author-revised versions of the article are then linked to the original. A similar post-publication review system with versioned articles is used by Science Open launched in 2014. Also in 2013, researchers from College of Information and Computer Sciences at University of Massachusetts Amherst founded OpenReview website to host anonymized review reports together with articles, which

1275-525: Is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products. The European Union has been using peer review in

1350-413: Is as of 2023 popular among computer scientists. In 2014, Life implanted an open peer review system, under which the peer-review reports and authors' responses are published as an integral part of the final version of each article. Since 2016, Synlett is experimenting with closed crowd peer review. The article under review is sent to a pool of 80+ expert reviewers who then collaboratively comment on

1425-479: Is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review . Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc. Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting, law, engineering (e.g., software peer review , technical peer review ), aviation, and even forest fire management. Peer review

1500-594: Is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004. Peer review, or student peer assessment, is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing. Peer review is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as part of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision. Rather than

1575-551: Is more time to present their points, and speakers can be interrupted by audience members to provide questions and feedback upon the topic or how well the speaker did in presenting their topic. Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. Peer review in writing is a pivotal component among various peer review mechanisms, often spearheaded by educators and involving student participation, particularly in academic settings. It constitutes

SECTION 20

#1732764901331

1650-582: Is published annually on the Friday before Christmas. This edition is known for research articles which apply a serious academic approach to investigating less serious medical questions. The results are often humorous and widely reported by the mainstream media. The BMJ has an open peer review system, in which authors are told who reviewed their manuscript. About half of all submitted articles are rejected without external review. Manuscripts chosen for peer review are then reviewed by external experts, who comment on

1725-648: Is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd , a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The current editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Kamran Abbasi , who was appointed in January 2022. The journal began publishing on 3 October 1840 as the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal and quickly attracted the attention of physicians around the world through its publication of high-quality original research articles and unique case reports. The BMJ ' s first editors were P. Hennis Green , lecturer on

1800-459: Is published without being reviewed. Authors have the opportunity to withdraw their article, to revise it in response to the reviews, or to publish it without revision. If the authors proceed with publication of their article despite critical comments, readers can clearly see any negative comments along with the names of the reviewers. In the social sciences, there have been experiments with wiki -style, signed peer reviews, for example in an issue of

1875-413: Is still a method used in classrooms to help students young and old learn how to revise. With evolving and changing technology, peer review will develop as well. New tools could help alter the process of peer review. Peer seminar is a method that involves a speaker that presents ideas to an audience that also acts as a "contest". To further elaborate, there are multiple speakers that are called out one at

1950-432: Is that peer review is not just about improving writing but about helping authors achieve their writing vision." Feedback from the majority of non-professional writers during peer review sessions often tends to be superficial, such as simple grammar corrections and questions. This precisely reflects the implication in the conclusion that the focus is only on improving writing skills. Meaningful peer review involves understanding

2025-507: Is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement

2100-450: Is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief , the editorial board or the program committee ) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal ,

2175-399: Is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy . This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine. Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing)

2250-734: The BMJ , the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published the reports are made available online as part of the "pre-publication history"'. Several other journals published by the BMJ Group allow optional open peer review, as does PLoS Medicine , published by the Public Library of Science . The BMJ ' s Rapid Responses allows ongoing debate and criticism following publication. In June 2006, Nature launched an experiment in parallel open peer review: some articles that had been submitted to

2325-605: The Journal of the American Medical Association , now known as JAMA. In 1980, the journal split in two parts - British medical journal (Clinical research edition) [ISSN 0267-0623] and British medical journal (Practice observed edition) [ISSN 0267-0631]. The BMJ is an advocate of evidence-based medicine . It publishes research as well as clinical reviews, recent medical advances, and editorial perspectives, among others. A special "Christmas Edition"

The BMJ - Misplaced Pages Continue

2400-481: The Semantic Web journal involves posting the entire pre-publication history of the article online, including not only signed reviews of the article, but also its previous versions and in some cases names of handling editors and author responses to the reviewers. Furthermore, the Semantic Web journal publishes reviews of all submissions, including rejected ones, on its website, while eLife plans to publish

2475-570: The Shakespeare Quarterly . In 2010, the BMJ began publishing signed reviewer's reports alongside accepted papers, after determining that telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted publicly did not significantly affect the quality of the reviews. In 2011, Peerage of Science , an independent peer review service, was launched with several non-traditional approaches to academic peer review. Most prominently, these include

2550-559: The Science Citation Index . The journal has long criticized the misuse of impact factors to award grants and in the recruitment of researchers by academic institutions. The five journals that cited The BMJ most often in 2008 were (in order of descending citation frequency) The BMJ , the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , The Lancet , BMC Public Health , and BMC Health Services Research . In

2625-542: The World Wide Web . In addition to the print content, the site contains supporting material for original research articles, additional news stories, and electronic letters to the editors. In 1999, all content of The BMJ was made freely available online; however, in 2006 this changed to a subscription model. Original research articles continue to be available free, but from January 2006 all other "added value" contents, including clinical reviews and editorials, require

2700-484: The open access journal Journal of Medical Internet Research was launched, which from its inception decided to publish the names of the reviewers at the bottom of each published article. Also in 1999, the British Medical Journal moved to an open peer review system, revealing reviewers' identities to the authors but not the readers, and in 2000, the medical journals in the open access BMC series published by BioMed Central , launched using open peer review. As with

2775-467: The "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999. In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion . Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs . These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where

2850-871: The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. “That’s boring.” This is also particularly evident in university classrooms, where the most common source of writing feedback during student years often comes from teachers, whose comments are often highly valued. Students may become influenced to provide research in line with the professor’s viewpoints, because of the teacher’s position of high authority. The effectiveness of feedback largely stems from its high authority. Benjamin Keating, in his article "A Good Development Thing: A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing," conducted

2925-429: The author's writing intent, posing valuable questions and perspectives, and guiding the author to achieve their writing goals. Magda Tigchelaar compares peer review with self-assessment through an experiment that divided students into three groups: self-assessment, peer review, and no review. Across four writing projects, she observed changes in each group, with surprisingly results showing significant improvement only in

3000-525: The authors could amend their articles further before print publication. The investigators concluded that the process had modest benefits for authors, editors and readers. Some studies have found that open identities lead to an increase in the quality of reviews, while other studies find no significant effect. Open peer review at BMJ journals has lent itself to randomized trials to study open identity and open report reviews. These studies did not find that open identities and open reports significantly affected

3075-431: The classroom environment at large. Understanding how their work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas and understand how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. It also gives students professional experience that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication. The process can also bolster

The BMJ - Misplaced Pages Continue

3150-426: The confidence of students on both sides of the process. It has been found that students are more positive than negative when reviewing their classmates' writing. Peer review can help students not get discouraged but rather feel determined to improve their writing. Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in

3225-471: The diseases of children at the Hunterian School of Medicine , who also was its founder, and Robert Streeten of Worcester , a member of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association council. The first issue of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal ( PMSJ ) was 16 pages long and contained three simple woodcut illustrations. The longest items were the editors' introductory editorial and

3300-531: The feedback with either positive or negative attitudes towards the text, resulting in selective or biased feedback and review, further impacting their ability to objectively evaluate the article. It implies that subjective emotions may also affect the effectiveness of peer review feedback. Pamela Bedore and Brian O’Sullivan also hold a skeptical view of peer review in most writing contexts. The authors conclude, based on comparing different forms of peer review after systematic training at two universities, that "the crux

3375-493: The first centrally randomized controlled trial. The journal also carried seminal papers on the causal effects of smoking on health and lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking. For a long time, the journal's sole competitor was The Lancet , also based in the UK, but with increasing globalization, The BMJ has faced tough competition from other medical journals, particularly The New England Journal of Medicine and

3450-442: The importance of the work and its suitability for publication, before the final decision on a manuscript is made by the editorial ("hanging") committee, so called because of its similarity to committees that decide which works of art should be hung in an exhibition. The acceptance rate is less than 7% for original research articles. At the beginning of February 2021, The BMJ introduced a charge of £299 for publishing obituaries. This

3525-627: The inefficiency of peer review based on research conducted during peer review sessions in university classrooms: This research demonstrates that besides issues related to expertise, numerous objective factors contribute to students' poor performance in peer review sessions, resulting in feedback from peer reviewers that may not effectively assist authors. Additionally, this study highlights the influence of emotions in peer review sessions, suggesting that both peer reviewers and authors cannot completely eliminate emotions when providing and receiving feedback. This can lead to peer reviewers and authors approaching

3600-478: The journal on its website under the heading Rapid Responses, organized as a fully moderated Internet forum. Comments are screened for unacceptable content, such as libel or obscenity, and contributors may not remove or edit contributions once they have been published. As of January 2013, 88,500 rapid responses had been posted on the BMJ's website. The BMJ is included in the major indexes PubMed , MEDLINE , EBSCO , and

3675-1072: The journal's online platform after a brief and limited check of scientific soundness and proper reporting and against plagiarism and offensive material; the manuscript is rendered open for public review by the entire community. In 2021, the authors of nearly half of the articles published by Nature chose to publish the reviewer reports as well. The journal considers this as an encouraging trial of transparent peer review. Some platforms, including some preprint servers, facilitate open peer review of preprints. Open identities have been argued to incite reviewers to be "more tactful and constructive" than they would be if they could remain anonymous, while however allowing authors to accumulate enemies who try to keep their papers from being published or their grant applications from being successful. Open peer review in all its forms has been argued to favour more honest reviewing, and to prevent reviewers from following their individual agendas. An article by Lonni Besançon et al. has also argued that open peer review helps evaluate

3750-464: The judging and scoring of the accuracy and justifiability of peer reviews, and concurrent usage of a single peer review round by several participating journals. Peerage of Science went out of business only a few year after it was founded, because it could attract neither enough publishers nor enough reviewers. Starting in 2013 with the launch of F1000Research , some publishers have combined open peer review with post-publication peer review by using

3825-567: The legitimacy of manuscripts that contain editorial conflict of interests; the authors argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred many publishers to open up their review process, increasing transparency in the process. In an experiment with 56 research articles accepted by the Medical Journal of Australia in 1996–1997, the articles were published online together with the peer reviewers' comments; readers could email their comments and

SECTION 50

#1732764901331

3900-505: The manuscript. In an effort to address issues with the reproducibility of research results, some scholars are asking that authors agree to share their raw data as part of the peer review process. As far back as 1962, for example, a number of psychologists have attempted to obtain raw data sets from other researchers, with mixed results, in order to reanalyze them. A recent attempt resulted in only seven data sets out of fifty requests. The notion of obtaining, let alone requiring, open data as

3975-424: The peer review process can be segmented into groups, where students present the papers to be reviewed, while other group members take notes and analyze them. Then, the review scope can be expanded to the entire class. This widens the review sources and further enhances the level of professionalism. With evolving and changing technology, peer review is also expected to evolve. New tools have the potential to transform

4050-441: The peer review process. Mimi Li discusses the effectiveness and feedback of an online peer review software used in their freshman writing class. Unlike traditional peer review methods commonly used in classrooms, the online peer review software offers a plethora of tools for editing articles, along with comprehensive guidance. For instance, it lists numerous questions peer reviewers can ask and allows for various comments to be added to

4125-471: The policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe , through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews , uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies. The State of California

4200-462: The process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards. The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term. In engineering , technical peer review

4275-402: The producers of the work ( peers ). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field . Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia , scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper 's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by

4350-409: The provinces, and dissemination of medical knowledge. Green and Streeten also expressed an interest in promoting public well-being, as well as maintaining 'medical practitioners, as a class in that rank of society which, by their intellectual acquirements, by their general moral character, and by the importance of the duties entrusted to them, they are justly entitled to hold'. In April 1842 the journal

4425-443: The quality of review or the rate of acceptance of articles for publication, and there was only one reported instance of a conflict between authors and reviewers ("adverse event"). The only significant negative effect of open peer review was "increasing the likelihood of reviewers declining to review". In some cases, open identities have helped detect reviewers' conflicts of interests. Open participation has been criticised as being

4500-427: The quantity of letter press) for our first number, as the most popular Medical Journal [ The Lancet ], after seventeen years of existence." In their introductory editorial and later statements, Green and Streeten defined "the main objects of promotion of which the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal is established". Summarized, there were two clear main objectives: the advancement of the profession, especially in

4575-485: The regular anonymous process were also available online for open, identified public comment. The results were less than encouraging – only 5% of authors agreed to participate in the experiment, and only 54% of those articles received comments. The editors have suggested that researchers may have been too busy to take part and were reluctant to make their names public. The knowledge that articles were simultaneously being subjected to anonymous peer review may also have affected

SECTION 60

#1732764901331

4650-439: The reviews not only for published articles, but also for rejected articles. The European Geosciences Union operates public discussions where open peer review is conducted before suitable articles are accepted for publication in the journal. Sci , an open access journal which covers all research fields, adapted a post publication public peer-review (P4R) in which it promised authors immediate visibility of their manuscripts on

4725-455: The same year the five journals most often cited in articles published in The BMJ were The BMJ , The Lancet , The New England Journal of Medicine , Journal of the American Medical Association and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . In the 2023 Journal Citation Reports The BMJ's impact factor was reported to be 93.7. ranking it 3rd among general medical journals. However, The BMJ in 2013 reported that it had become

4800-536: The selected text. Based on observations over the course of a semester, students showed varying degrees of improvement in their writing skills and grades after using the online peer review software. Additionally, they highly praised the technology of online peer review. Open peer review These modifications are supposed to address various perceived shortcomings of the traditional scholarly peer review process, in particular its lack of transparency, lack of incentives, wastefulness, bullying and harassment. In 1999,

4875-579: The self-assessment group. The author's analysis suggests that self-assessment allows individuals to clearly understand the revision goals at each stage, as the author is the most familiar with their own writing. Thus, self-checking naturally follows a systematic and planned approach to revision. In contrast, the effectiveness of peer review is often limited due to the lack of structured feedback, characterized by scattered, meaningless summaries and evaluations that fail to meet author's expectations for revising their work. Stephanie Conner and Jennifer Gray highlight

4950-473: The type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review . It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments. Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review. It developed over the following centuries with, for example, the journal Nature making it standard practice in 1973. The term "peer review"

5025-524: The uptake. In February 2006, the journal Biology Direct was launched by BioMed Central , adding another alternative to the traditional model of peer review. If authors can find three members of the Editorial Board who will each return a report or will themselves solicit an external review, the article will be published. As with Philica , reviewers cannot suppress publication, but in contrast to Philica , no reviews are anonymous and no article

5100-442: The value of most students' feedback during peer review. They argue that many peer review sessions fail to meet students' expectations, as students, even as reviewers themselves, feel uncertain about providing constructive feedback due to their lack of confidence in their own writing. The authors further offer numerous improvement strategies across various dimensions, such as course content and specific implementation steps. For instance,

5175-505: The writer or the editor to get much out of the activity. As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the class, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process. Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online. Students that are older can give better feedback to their peers, getting more out of peer review, but it

5250-616: The writing craft at large. Peer review can be problematic for developmental writers, particularly if students view their writing as inferior to others in the class as they may be unwilling to offer suggestions or ask other writers for help. Peer review can impact a student's opinion of themselves as well as others as sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced, which can also make them feel reluctant to receive or offer criticism. Teachers using peer review as an assignment can lead to rushed-through feedback by peers, using incorrect praise or criticism, thus not allowing

5325-488: The writing craft overall. Academic peer review has faced considerable criticism, with many studies highlighting inherent issues in the peer review process. The editorial peer review process has been found to be strongly biased against ‘negative studies,’ i.e. studies that do not work. This then biases the information base of medicine. Journals become biased against negative studies when values come into play. “Who wants to read something that doesn’t work?” asks Richard Smith in

5400-538: Was first used in the early 1970s. Since 2017 a monument to peer review is at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure. A prototype professional peer review process

5475-556: Was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care. Professional peer review

5550-796: Was retitled the Provincial Medical Journal and Retrospect of the Medical Sciences , but two years later it reverted to the PMSJ under the sole editorship of Streeten. In 1857 the BMJ first appeared, when the PMSJ was merged with the Associated Medical Journal (Volumes 1–4; 1853–1856), which had itself evolved from the London Medical Journal (Volumes 1–4; 1849–1852) under the editorship of John Rose Cormack . The BMJ published

5625-554: Was widely criticized on social media, by the British Medical Association among others, because of the large number of medical staff being killed by COVID-19. The decision was explained, but reversed, by the end of the month. In response to the many problems with traditional medical guidelines , the journal introduced BMJ Rapid Recommendations , a series of trustworthy guidelines focused on the most pressing medical problems. The BMJ publishes most e-letters to

#330669