[Paladin2]

Peer review is a joke?

[Stayfree]

Obviously!

[The Continental Op]

I remember reading a recent (about two months ago) article in Scientific American that a very high percentage of peer reviewed studies have results that cannot be replicated. Something like 40%, as I recall. Lots of junk science, dishonest science, and “scientism” out there.

[Rockingham]

Peer review is a flawed system, but with nothing better yet devised, it endures as the primary standard for evaluating scientific research. The larger issue -- the soundness of much peer-reviewed and published scientific research -- remains in doubt.

For example, a few years ago, a major drug company reviewed the published literature on cancer in search of new drug targets. Then, with targets identified, they tried duplicating the key published research -- just to make sure -- and were startled to find that much of that research could not be duplicated. The entire project was then abandoned as a waste of effort.

For a more detailed accounting of the defects in published scientific research, I suggest taking a look at: Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance and The misuse and abuse of statistics in biomedical research.