This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—
Prestigious journals boast that their articles are all peer reviewed. They measure their prestige by the proportion of submitted manuscripts that are rejected.I submit that reviewmanship has now become analogous to grantmanship—a huge burden on the institution of science and a drag on progress and initiative. Both are touted as democratic, fair processes that ensure high professional standards. A theoretical defense can be built for this proposition, but there is no empirical evidence to support it.Historically, there are spectacular examples of disapproved manuscripts that were later found to be seminal articles of the greatest importance. Peer review is a good idea. So is socialism, except that its ideals are subverted by a new, heartless management class. I suggest that reviewers have become too arrogant and too powerful.My present peeve is with the comments one receives from the present cast of reviewers, whether or not
Kligman AM. Reviewmanship: In Need of Review. Arch Dermatol. 1986;122(2):131–132. doi:10.1001/archderm.1986.01660140015001
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: