TY  - JOUR
T1  - THe 'judge' as partner and friend
AU  - Soffer A
Y1  - 1979/03/01
N1  - 10.1001/archinte.1979.03630400009004
JO  - Archives of Internal Medicine
SP  - 277
EP  - 277
VL  - 139
IS  - 3
N2  - The peer review system of editorial review is under fire. Two studies indicated that the frequency of agreement between two referees assessing the same paper is barely above that expected from chance.1,2 More recently, Commoner3 reported that, "The peer review system appears to be not some minor fault in the housekeeping of science but a threat to its basic purpose—the advancement of knowledge about nature." Has the traditional mechanism of editorial consultation outlived its usefulness? Must drastic changes be introduced if the fundamental concept of peer review is to be retained?One reason for the torrent of abuse heaped on referees is a fundamental misunderstanding of their basic role. The judgmental aspect of review, that is, recommendation for acceptance or rejection, is but one element of the review process. The submission of a manuscript can be a valuable educational experience for the author whether or not the paper
SN  - 0003-9926
M3  - doi: 10.1001/archinte.1979.03630400009004
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1979.03630400009004
ER  -