The Argument for Quality Assurance

The story references John Bohannon, a biologist at Harvard, recently submitted a paper on cancer research 304 journals describing themselves as using peer review. What made this article different was that (a) the paper was sent under a pseudo name and (b) it was intentionally flawed with errors in study design, analysis and interpretation of results. What was problematic was that 157 of the journals accepted it for publication.

It seems that there is a viable solution. Medical and non-medical testing and calibration laboratories can be improved through quality assessment. In our own recent examination, 75 percent of laboratories that were correcting proficiency testing error found system errors that impacted on their routine testing.

"All credible journals need to develop a quality assessment strategy for all manuscript reviewers."

Read more:
Saving Science: The Argument for Quality Assurance

Source: Making Medical Laboratory Quality Relevant
Image credits: Dariusz Leszczynski

Art and Science of Laboratory Medicine

Facebook: www.facebook.com/LaboratoryEQAS

Twitter: LaboratoryEQAS

Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/labmed/medical-laboratory-and-biomedical-science/