Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Special Feature
  • Published:

Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages 13–15 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The formal evaluation of scientific literature by invited referees (peer reviewers) is a relatively recent phenomenon and now is considered a cornerstone of modern science. However, its roots can be traced back to antiquity. As the speed and complexity of scientific information and publishing increases in the digital age, peer review must continue to evolve. To understand the future direction of peer review, we must understand its past. Here, we briefly explore the history of scientific peer review. This may help us predict and design appropriate peer review for the new era. This work was originally presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in the Spring of 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Osler W . The Evolution of Modern Medicine. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1921.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jowett B, Burges G. Plato: The Complete Works. Titan Read Classics: Copenhagen, 2015.

  3. Levey M . Medical ethics of medieval islam with special reference to Al-Ruhāwī's ‘Practical Ethics of the Physician’. Trans Am Philos Soc 1967; 57 (3): 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Spier R . The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20 (8): 357–358.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Burnham JC . The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990; 263 (10): 1323–1329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007; 31 (2): 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kronick DA . Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990; 263 (10): 1321–1322.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Csiszar A . Troubled from the start. Nature 2016; 532: 306–308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DeAngelis CD . Peer review and the public's health. Milbank Q 2015; 93 (2): 247–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bohannon J . Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 2013; 342 (6154): 60–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Noorden R . Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature 2011; 478 (7367): 26–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637–641.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Editors of The Lancet. Retraction-Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 2010; 375: 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the efforts of Esther Sarino, our clinical librarian, and Pravash Mukherjee, for their editorial guidance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    P R Farrell

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Children’s National Health System, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA

    L Magida Farrell

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    M K Farrell

Authors
  1. P R Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L Magida Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M K Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P R Farrell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farrell, P., Magida Farrell, L. & Farrell, M. Ancient texts to PubMed: a brief history of the peer-review process. J Perinatol 37, 13–15 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.209

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links