title: Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update.
abstract: There have been published at least two major sets of contributions to the matter of peer review of manuscripts since my last article on this topic. In one, the merits of truly open peer review, in which the names of authors and their affiliations are revealed to reviewers, and the names of reviewers to authors, are extolled. The other contribution is not so original, in that it exhorts biomedical investigators and authors to consult with professional statisticians. But the vigorous correspondence that followed was interesting. I have come down strongly in favour of open peer review for all biomedical journals. However, I have also warned investigators and authors that statisticians often do not agree and, sometimes, violently disagree. I suggest that it is time a prospective, comparative study of statistical reviewers and their reviews should be carried out.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville 3050, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ludbrook
mesh_terms: D001319:Authorship; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D010380:Peer Review / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards