|
| About This Section |
 |
| BioMedNet Reviews |
Is the world’s largest life science reviews
database. It includes over 16,000 articles drawn from over 150 life
science and biomedical journals.
|
|
|
| Access To This Section |
As a BioMedNet member you have:
Free full-text access to this
article within BioMedNet Reviews for 14 days.
Access to abstracts of all articles
in the Reviews database.
You will have a full-text access to all other articles if your
institute subscribes.
Recommend to your librarian.
|
| |
| Did you know? |
Full-text access to BioMedNet Reviews is
available on subscription for your institute or company.
More information
|
| Email Alerts |
You can customize your email alerts from
BioMedNet Reviews to keep up to date with your own interests.
Sign up
here
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
 The
peer-review process is a turf battle with the ultimate prize
of the knowledge, science or doctrine being published. On the
one side, we have the writers and originators of ideas, on the
other, we have the editors and critics. But it was not always
so.
|
The medical school on the
island of Cos, Greece, contained the manuscripts of the
medico-philosopher Hippocrates (460–377
bce
1) as they were written. Aristotle's (384–322
bce)
Biology describes and comments on the organisms that he
and his colleagues found in their world. They observed and
they wrote and these writings, unsullied by the meddling of
others, have been passed on to us. Indeed, the ancient world
is not renowned for seeking to improve on the messages of its
small band of authors. But we do have evidence from the
continual redaction of biblical texts, which occurred before
they were canonized in ~ce
100, that these texts were 'worked on' by a form of 'copyist'
review process. It is thought that one or other such worker
(the use of the term 'peer' at this point could be strained)
sought to 'improve' on the original.
Perhaps the first documented description of a peer-review
process is in a book called Ethics of the Physician by
Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi (ce
854–931) of Al Raha, Syria. This work, and its later variants
or manuals, states that it is the duty of a visiting physician
to make duplicate notes of the condition of the patient on
each visit. When the patient had been cured or had died, the
notes of the physician were examined by a local council of
physicians, who would adjudicate as to whether the physician
had performed according to the standards that then prevailed.
On the basis of their rulings, the practising physician could
be sued for damages by a maltreated patient
[1,2] .
Entering the world of the printed document
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Muslim
Turks, the situation changed. Guttenberg invented the printing
press, and so what was printed could now be distributed and
affect otherwise docile citizens or subjects. It therefore
became important to regulate that which was set before the
public. Copernicus was allowed his heliocentric revolutionary
ideas, because he was a Canon of the Frombork Cathedral,
Poland, and his work was published on the last day of his life
in 1543. Nevertheless, it was later declared to be heretical
by the Spanish Inquisition – a form of retroactive rejection.
But others were not so fortunate. Servetus, a Spanish
physician (1509–1553), was burned at the stake by John Calvin,
a 16th Century theologian, in Geneva because he suggested
that, in addition to other doctrinal differences, blood passed
from the right side of the heart to the left through the
lungs. The review process did not have the same consequences
for Galileo (1564–1642). A year after the publication of his
book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in
1632, he was confined to his home and required to withdraw his
support for the Copernican view of the solar system. The
Belgian anatomist Versalius (1514–1564) fared better. He
challenged the orthodoxy of his day that was based on complete
compliance with Galen (ce
129–210). However, his views were not expunged and so medicine
was able to advance.
The scientific method defined
A universal method for the generation and assessment of
new science was enunciated by Francis Bacon (1561–1626) in his
Novum Organum of 1620. This powerful work inspired many
English scholars, some of whom engaged in an informal pattern
of meetings to discuss and debate their varied views and
opinions on the unfolding science. In 1645, a group had formed
that took the 'New Philosophy' seriously and on the 28
November 1660, they resolved to do as other countries had done
and form an official society or academy. By 1662, they had a
Royal Charter of Incorporation and, on the issuance of a
second Royal Charter, this body became the Royal Society of
London for improving Natural Knowledge. By 1665, the Society
had it own journal, Philosophical Transactions, edited
by Henry Oldenburg. At that time, what was published in the
journal was largely a matter for the editor and those whose
help he might, or might not have sought.
|
|
Go to the Full Article > > |
|
|
|
 As
a BioMedNet member you have free
full-text access to this article
within BioMedNet Reviews for 14 days
You
will have full-text access to all articles if your institute
subscribes.
Recommend a subscription to your librarian
There
are 15,000 more Review articles in
BioMedNet Reviews
Please
send us your
feedback on this magazine
|
|
|
|
BioMedNet Magazine
3rd - 16th July 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Related
Links in BioMedNet Reviews |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
