Medical News & Perspectives |

Striving for a More Perfect Peer Review:  Editors Confront Strengths, Flaws of Biomedical Literature

Bridget M. Kuehn, MSJ
JAMA. 2013;310(17):1781-1783. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280660.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Chicago—“Most results in clinical research are false positives or substantially exaggerated,” said John Ioannidis, MD, to an audience of journal editors from around the world, gathered in September for the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, a quadrennial research meeting organized by JAMA and the BMJ (http://bit.ly/19gG1C8).

His stinging assessment of the peer-reviewed literature was one of many reminders that the field of biomedical publishing remains a work in progress nearly 2 and half decades after meeting organizers launched the Peer Review Congress as a means to promote research into the field and hold one another accountable. Such robust criticism continued throughout the meeting, with researchers and journal editors presenting evidence of bias, failure to publish results or report author conflicts of interest, and sloppy or inaccurate reporting of results.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview


Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Graphic Jump LocationImage not available.

At a recent meeting in Chicago, John Ioannidis, MD, said most clinical study findings are wrong or much weaker than they appear.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Graphic Jump LocationImage not available.

Drummond Rennie, MD, meeting organizer and Contributing Deputy Editor at JAMA, said the Peer Review Congress has helped draw attention to the corrosive effects of bias on the medical literature.



Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics