-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Thomas Annesley, Mitchell Scott, Hilda Bastian, Vivian Fonseca, John P A Ioannidis, Michael A Keller, Jessica Polka, Biomedical Journals and Preprint Services: Friends or Foes?, Clinical Chemistry, Volume 63, Issue 2, 1 February 2017, Pages 453–458, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.268227
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
As authors know, the current path for recognition and “scorekeeping” of contributions to biomedical science is publication in journals following the peer-review process. Many believe that the peer-review process is as old as scientific publishing itself. In reality, the peer-review process, as we know it today, is relatively recent. When the first scientific journal, the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions, began in 1665, the content was under the control of a single editor who solicited and selected papers he felt relevant and important. As scientific publications increased along with the number of journals, the review process remained under the control of single editors or at best a small team of editors until the early 19th century when some, but not all, journals would seek the advice from outside experts or referees about studies the editorial team was not familiar with. The peer-review process as we know it today did not really start until the middle of the 20th century. Indeed, Nature did not establish a formal peer-review process until 1967, and of Albert Einstein's 301 publications there is evidence that only 1 underwent peer review. Interestingly, he told the editor of that journal that he would take his study elsewhere!
