Braun Tibor, Schubert András (szerk.): Szakértői bírálat (peer review) a tudományos kutatásban : Válogatott tanulmányok a téma szakirodalmából (A MTAK Informatikai És Tudományelemzési Sorozata 7., 1993)

EUGENE GARFIELD: Refereeing and Peer Review. Part 2. The Research on Refereeing and Alternatives in the Present System

22 GARFIELD: REFEREEING AND PEER REVIEW, PART 1 The question of refereeing must be discussed in the larger context of peer review for funding research. In the next part of this essay, I hope to review the anecdotal as well as systematic information available. But refereeing and peer review are ethical and sociopolitical issues scientists must review periodically. Democratic institutions are dynamic. We want to retain the best of what we have had, but we must be willing to change that which no longer satisfies the needs of a changing world. Postscript Since it is a primary mission of ISI Pres^

8 to publish books on the process of scientific communication, it has published several such works mentioned in this essay. Several more, including Lock's A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine,

1

5 will be printed or reprinted by ISI Press in the fall. They are: Medical Style and Format: an International Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers

4

2 and How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences,

4

3 by Edward J. Huth, editor, Annals of Internal Medicine-, How to Copyedit Scientific Books and Journals,

4

4 by Maeve O'Connor, CIBA Foundation, London, UK; and An Insider's Guide for Medical Authors and Editors,

4

5 by Peter Morgan, scientific editor, Canadian Medical Association Journal. Incidentally, Lock's book contains a bibliography of over 200 references

— some of which appear following the references in this essay in the selected bibliography. In a review

4

6 of Lock's book, Alfred Yankauer, editor, American Journal of Public Health, says it is "an invaluable reference for all those interested in the editorial process." In his review, he quotes a passage from Alexander Pope

4

7 that he feels "captured the essence" of Lock's views on refereeing and the editor's role. Yankauer suggests that for the word "critic," the reader should substitute "editor" or "referee/reviewer."

4

6 But you who seek to give and merit fame, And justly bear a Critic's noble name, Be sure yourself and your own reach to know, How far your genius, taste and learning go; Launch not beyond your depth, but be discreet, And mark that point where sense and dullness meet.... Careless of censure, nor too fond of fame; Still pleas'd to praise, yet not afraid of blame; Averse alike to flatter or offend; Not free from faults, nor yet too vain to mend. Alexander Pope An Essay on Criticism My thanks to Stephen A. Bonaduce and Terri Freedman for their help in the preparation of this essay. REFERENCES 1. Garfield E. Refereeing and peer review. Part 1. Current Contents (31):3-U, 4 August 1986. 2. Cole S, Ruhin L A Cole I R. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: phase one of a study. Washington. DC: National Academy of Sciences. 1978. 193 p. 3. Cole IRA Cole S. Peer review in the National Science Foundation: phase two of a study. Washington. DC: National Academy Press, 1981. 106 p. 4. RasaeR A S, Thon B D A Grace M. Peer review: a simplified approach. J. Rheumatol. 10:479-81, 1983. 5. Sanders H I. Peer review. How well is it working? Chem. Eng. News 60( 11 ):32-43, 1982. 6. Gordon M. Running a refereeing system. Leicester, UK: Primary Communications Research Centre, University of Leicester, 1983. 56 p.