Scottish validation study of Cancer Registration data childhood leukaemia 1968-1981. Bone marrow review--II. Following a review of central leukaemia registration data for Scottish children 1968-1981 a retrospective assessment of leukaemia type was made by inspection of bone marrow slides. Only 57% of slides were still available and in 72% of these the review panel confirmed the initial diagnosis of leukaemia and its type. In eight cases the panel disagreed with the diagnosis or the type of leukaemia designated. Central slide review at diagnosis in childhood leukaemia is essential if subsequent epidemiological studies are to be meaningful. Published in Leukemia research (1987)

Abstract Reliable science depends on trust. A transparent, rigorous peer-review process and publishing system are critical to maintaining that trust. The system encompasses scientists, authors, editors (including editors-in-chief, and associate or subject matter editors), reviewers, publishers, and readers, to name a few. While all members of the process are important, this presentation focuses on editors and reviewers. Editors and reviewers play essential roles in safeguarding the integrity of published research. Editors, who are typically active scientists themselves, set and uphold journal standards by carefully selecting qualified reviewers. These reviewers are tasked with providing both the editor and the authors with detailed, fair, and constructive feedback. Reviewers, in turn, act as independent evaluators who assess study design, methodology, and data interpretation to verify that conclusions are fully supported by the evidence provided in the manuscript. A major component of maintaining scientific credibility is the ethical framework that underlies scientific publishing. Editors and reviewers help enforce requirements such as conflict-of-interest disclosures, adherence to animal or human research regulations, and transparency in methods, funding, and author contributions. Equally essential is the commitment to reproducibility. By requiring thorough reporting of methodologies, encouraging data sharing, and valuing well-executed confirmation or “negative” studies alon

The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review. Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE? Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication. HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is