Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers’ learning

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Insights into Imaging
Published
2026-05-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-026-02302-8
Primary Topic
Radiology practices and education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers’ learning

Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez, Francesco Sardanelli
Insights into Imaging
Radiology practices and education
article

Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers’ learning

Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez, Francesco Sardanelli
article en

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.

Insights into ImagingVol. 17(1)
University of Auckland (NZ), Auckland City Hospital (NZ), Lega Italiana per la Lotta ai Tumori (IT)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Radiology practices and education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.