[Shared responsibility in expert review of original articles].
OBJECTIVE
To point out some defects in the process of selection of manuscripts for publication in the primary biomedical literature, and offer some recommendations for reviewers, editors and authors that can enhance the accountability and effectiveness of peer review.


METHODS
Although peer review is said to guarantee the quality of scientific journals, there are no experimental data to prove this statement, and research is urgently needed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of the system. The term 'peer review' is used for very different processes, and there is no commonly accepted definition. To ensure professionalism and accountability, all steps of the peer review process need to be well thought out and documented, and the responsibilities of all persons involved need to be clearly defined.


CONCLUSIONS
To ensure accountability in the peer review system and reduce the probability of errors and abuse, every journal should have in place a set of internal guidelines of good practice for editorial staff, reviewers and authors, and this information should be made widely available.
Shashok
K
K
Grupo de Trabajo Evaluación y Transferencia de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Granada, España.
D010380:Peer Review; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards*; D011786:Quality Control
Responsabilidades compartidas en la revisión de los originales por expertos.