Is Peer Review Broken?

The Scientist ^ | Feb 2006 | ALISON MCCOOK

[AndrewC]

Ping

Despite the number of complaints lodged at peer review, and the lack of research to show that it works, it remains a valued system, says Rennie. Scientists sigh when they're asked to review a paper, but they get upset if they're not asked, he notes. Reviewing articles is a good exercise, Rennie says, and it enables reviewers to stay abreast of what's going on. Peer review "has many imperfections, but I think it's probably the best system we've got," says Bateson.

Experts also acknowledge that peer review is hardly ever to blame when fraud is published, since thoroughly checking data could take as much time as creating it in the first place.

[LibFreeOrDie]

Many science/medical journals these days prefer to give space to political harangues, rather than research.

[Clemenza]

Let's get this party started!

[mlo]

I've been rejected by Science. Who do I whine to?

[AndrewC]

I've been rejected by Science. Who do I whine to?

That's a gimme. Since your submission was not published in a peer-reviewed publication, it is not science.(that is, of course, assuming that it has not been published at all in such publications). So you whine to no one.

[ClaireSolt]

No. Just start a new journal.

[grey_whiskers]

Annals of Improbable Research, of course!

Full Disclosure: formerly the Journal of Irreproducible Results... :-)

Try google for ignoble prizes...

Cheers!

[PatrickHenry]

Archive?

[Physicist]

If peer review is too highly selective, that isn't a sign of being broken. It's a sign of health.

As for the evidence that peer review works, all you have to do is compare what's in the scientific journals to what's on the internet as a whole.

[Mamzelle]

The disgraced Korean stem-cell "scientist" got his impetus from a "peer-reviewed" series of articles in Science magazine. Thanks to such sterling recommendations from such august editor-"scientists", California earmarked $3Billion (that's a B) dollars for embryonic stem cell grants and research.

Looks like that white coat doesn't come with a halo. Maybe scientists put their pants on one leg at a time, like the rest of us.

[Always Right]

Everyone, it seems, has a problem with peer review at top-tier journals.

Peer review is pretty simple these days. If the subject agrees with the politics of the publication, it is blanketly approved. If the subject goes against the politics of the publication, it is blanketly disapproved. The facts are not really scruntinized all that much. It is the sad state of science today.

[Always Right]

Many science/medical journals these days prefer to give space to political harangues, rather than research.

There is 'research', but the 'research' is definitely evaluated more on its political implications than on its scientific merit.

[Always Right]

If peer review is too highly selective, that isn't a sign of being broken. It's a sign of health.

If the selection criteria is agenda based, then there is a problem. And today politics is a major driving force in what makes it to publication.

[Physicist]

And today politics is a major driving force in what makes it to publication.

What makes you say this?

[Panzerlied]

To anyone familiar with funded research in the physical sciences, this problem was predictable decades ago.

The present day demands on an investigator to "Publish or Perish" are created not only from a desire to obtain job security via tenure, but a need to justify further research funding.

There was a time when patient, scholarly and well thought out experimental design resulted in the publishing of a handful of papers annually. While this body of work seldom involved results of a "breakthrough nature" in science, it was at least rigorously accurate and created a body of knowledge in a field that could be cited with confidence and often used by real geniuses in science to identify and support novel theories.

I contend that modern research in an academic setting no longer permits this patient scholarship and we have lost something as a result.

[AndrewC]

If peer review is too highly selective, that isn't a sign of being broken. It's a sign of health.

That certainly depends on the selection process. Anyway, I didn't choose the word "broken", the author did.

[VOA]

bump

[Always Right]

What makes you say this?

You don't think the politics of abortion, gay rights, and global warming don't have a major impact on what papers get published and which ones get rejected? Global Warming is probably the worst case.