Regrettably you leave unexplored the question of why the Conservative government – who presumably possess the wherewithal to inform themselves – are so set on a course which peer-reviewed scientific literature over the last few years so decisively rejects, which the local democratic process has overwhelmingly opposed, and which will make it impossible for the UK to fulfil its climate commitments.
We describe the setup of a neonatal quality improvement tool and list which peer-reviewed requirements it fulfils and which it does not.
A questionnaire survey sent to 2,660 UK surgeons asked which information sources they considered to be important and which peer-reviewed journals they read, and perceived as important, to inform their clinical practice.
We aimed to determine first which information sources are generally most consulted by paediatricians to inform their clinical practice, and which sources they considered most important, and second, how many and which peer-reviewed journals they read.
Participants at several of the events raised the need for a review of the way in which peer review is carried out in the sciences.
Wood and Wessely [ 15] list seven key aspects which peer review is expected to meet: efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, responsiveness, rationality, fairness and validity but suggest that realisation of any one of these objectives may mitigate the realisation of another.
This study was designed to present the results of a novel prospective contouring rounds (CR), in which peer review occurs once the contours and written directive are completed but before initiation of treatment planning.
This would be an especially powerful development, as the extent to which peer review of an article extends to its underlying data is generally not at all clear, and current mechanisms for data correction, updating and maintenance are not synchronized with those for managing the literature [ 37].
This included government reports, research institute publications and reviews which were not peer reviewed.
