To the Editor.
—The recent publication in JAMA of papers from the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication1 demonstrates quite clearly that the strategy of using periodic conferences to generate research on peer review has been successful. It is interesting to note that since the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication in 1989 not only has there been an increase in the quantity of research on peer review generated (from 50 to 110 abstracts submitted),1,2 but the complexity of research appearing in The JOURNAL is greater. More manuscripts from the second congress used quantitative methods and less were of a descriptive nature.These observations relate to the future study of biomedical peer review. Is there any loss associated with the gain of a shift to quantification in peer review research? Research on diseases where behavioral factors elevate risk has sought to complement
Gellert GA. Editorial Peer Review. JAMA. 1995;273(2):114-115. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520260034024