同儕審查是學術界進行科學探索時所採用的一項自律機制，幾乎已制度化地納入學術組織的運作之中，並普遍獲得學界人士的支持。基本上同儕審查的正當性是基於學術社群成員之間的信賴與誠信，在各項學術活動中以不同的作業模式分配有限資源，包括學術文獻出版、研究計畫獎助、大學教職聘用與升遷，以及學術成就獎勵等。但是同儕審查的運作方式迄今未臻完善，除了出現效用、效率，以及信度等問題外，許多研究亦已證實存在多種評審者偏見，因此有愈來愈多的學者主張對同儕審查進行持續性地檢驗與監督，以提升評審作業的品質與公平性。本文透過文獻分析論述同儕審查在學術領域的應用與研究，首先說明同儕審查的定義、分類與優缺點，並以學術期刊稿件、獎助計畫，以及大學教職聘用／升遷之同儕審查為例，探討同儕審查的起源、發展與研究現況，最後分析同儕審查的國際合作及其與書目計量的關係。

Peer review is a self-regulation mechanism for scientific inquiry. Institutionalized and incorporated into the structure and operation of science, it has received considerable support in the academic setting. The legitimacy of peer review is based on trust and integrity. In various ways, it allocates scarce resources such as journal space, research funding, faculty recruitment, recognition, and rewards for academic achievements. But there are growing indications that peer review has yet to fulfill its potential functions, leading to negative assessments as to whether it is effective, efficient, or reliable. Many studies have found links between potential sources of bias and judgments in peer review and expressed reservations over the fairness of the process. It is, therefore, important that the peer review process should be subjected to serious scrutiny and regular evaluation that would lead to better quality and greater fairness. This study presents a systematic review of the empirical literature on peer review of journal manuscripts, grant applications, and faculty appointments and promotions. Historical and contextual information is provided as a basis for interpreting this review. Finally, the authors discuss international recommendations for good practice in peer review and the potential and problems of peer review and bibliometrics.