Abstract Peer review is the result of a long historical evolution. From the Greek philosophy (the metaphor of Socratic maieutics) to the Cartesian method of systematic doubt and analytical reconstruction, from the informal editorial judgments of seventeenth-century scientific societies to the institutionalized systems of the twentieth century, the idea of examination of apparent certainties became what we know as “peer review.” It is a pragmatic response to the growth and specialization of science, rooted in enduring epistemological traditions, started in Europe in 1665 with the Journal des sçavans and Philosophical Transactions. Through this process, authors are compelled to justify claims, expose underlying assumptions, and transform hypotheses into defensible knowledge. In radiology—particularly in the era of quantitative imaging, artificial intelligence, and biomarker development—peer review also functions as an educational tool. It sharpens the ability to detect methodological fragility, latent bias, and to distinguish exploratory from confirmatory research. Despite limitations such as reviewer fatigue and conservatism, peer review shapes scientific reasoning, allowing reviewers to learn science and clinical practice from authors and other reviewers. More than two thousand years ago, Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote: Homines etiam cum alios aliquid docent, aliquid discunt—Even when humans teach others, they themselves learn something. Critical relevance statement While reviewing manuscripts is a time-demanding activity, for the reviewer, it can result in a substantial improvement in scientific and clinical knowledge that can be transferred to the daily practice of radiology. Key Points <UnorderedList Mark="Bullet"> <ItemContent> Peer review evolved from informal judgment into a structured scientific safeguard. </ItemContent> <ItemContent> A good peer review asks questions rather than simply giving verdicts. </ItemContent> <ItemContent> Reviewing papers is one of the most powerful ways scientists learn. </ItemContent> <ItemContent> Peer review shapes not only science, but the reviewers themselves as scientists. </ItemContent> </UnorderedList> Graphical Abstract

Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers’ learning

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年5月21日

查看全文

Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez,
Francesco Sardanelli

摘要

Abstract

Peer review is the result of a long historical evolution. From the Greek philosophy (the metaphor of Socratic maieutics) to the Cartesian method of systematic doubt and analytical reconstruction, from the informal editorial judgments of seventeenth-century scientific societies to the institutionalized systems of the twentieth century, the idea of examination of apparent certainties became what we know as “peer review.” It is a pragmatic response to the growth and specialization of science, rooted in enduring epistemological traditions, started in Europe in 1665 with the Journal des sçavans and Philosophical Transactions. Through this process, authors are compelled to justify claims, expose underlying assumptions, and transform hypotheses into defensible knowledge. In radiology—particularly in the era of quantitative imaging, artificial intelligence, and biomarker development—peer review also functions as an educational tool. It sharpens the ability to detect methodological fragility, latent bias, and to distinguish exploratory from confirmatory research. Despite limitations such as reviewer fatigue and conservatism, peer review shapes scientific reasoning, allowing reviewers to learn science and clinical practice from authors and other reviewers. More than two thousand years ago, Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote: Homines etiam cum alios aliquid docent, aliquid discunt—Even when humans teach others, they themselves learn something.

Critical relevance statement

While reviewing manuscripts is a time-demanding activity, for the reviewer, it can result in a substantial improvement in scientific and clinical knowledge that can be transferred to the daily practice of radiology.

Key Points

Peer review evolved from informal judgment into a structured scientific safeguard.

A good peer review asks questions rather than simply giving verdicts.

Reviewing papers is one of the most powerful ways scientists learn.

Peer review shapes not only science, but the reviewers themselves as scientists.

Graphical Abstract