High-quality the foundation of editorial peer review to ensure that the material submitted is original, that the data and conclusions are valid, and that the article is well crafted and suitable for publication. Reviewers' comments often stimulate the authors to seek new data, reanalyze and reevaluate their papers, and, eventually, resubmit a manuscript of higher quality than the original work, which is yet again reviewed before a decision is reached. Even for the authors of rejected manuscripts, peer-review comments provide an educational experience in an otherwise unsuccessful endeavor.
Although peer review is central to the conduct of scientific research and biomedical publication, this complex process has not been subject to close scrutiny. The First International Congress of Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, sponsored by the American Medical Association and the Journal of the American Medical Association, which will be held in Chicago from May 10 through 12, 1989, will hear
Arndt KA. Peer Review, the Archives, and Harvey Blank. Arch Dermatol. 1989;125(2):285–286. doi:10.1001/archderm.1989.01670140137027