Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [www.rsmpress.co.uk], and this is the second in a series of extracts that will be published in the JRSM. DOES PEER REVIEW 'WORK' AND WHAT IS IT FOR? But does peer review 'work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that

No abstract

This is the first article in a new section on managing clinical information that will appear regularly in the journal. This week, Richard Smith considers the information needs of doctors. He reviews existing research and draws conclusions about what information doctors need, what they think they need, how they try to find it, and how they determine its valueThe aims of this section are: * To help doctors understand that better management of clinical information will improve their treatment ofpatients and the management of their practices * To encourage rigorous evaluation of information management systems, particularly with respect to patient care * To empower doctors to shape the development of information management projects so that clinical needs are put before financial and administrative needs * To generate enthusiasm among doctors by demystifying clinical information management * To help doctors understand the information demands that will be made of them * To consider how information management can enhance doctors'relationships twith patients and the public

Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [www.rsmpress.co.uk], and this is the second in a series of extracts that will be published in the JRSM. DOES PEER REVIEW 'WORK' AND WHAT IS IT FOR? But does peer review 'work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that