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.
Many science/medical journals these days prefer to give space to political harangues, rather than research.
Let's get this party started!
I've been rejected by Science. Who do I whine to?
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.
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.
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.
bump
It isn't about research anymore, or verifiable statistics, or case studies with large control groups.
It's all about the politics, baby.
All we have to reasonably evaluate papers before publication is peer review. The author himself submits to peer review, in many cases, before submitting the paper to the journal by letting colleagues see the paper. Still, it is possible for an error to escape detection, and the error could be anything from a math error that few would be equipped to detect in the first place, to an error in reasoning due to a subtle fallacy that even fewer would be equipped to detect. It's not perfect even with the best of intentions, but what else can be done?
"It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."
Funny stuff!
Peer review in the humanities was politicized long ago. There are journals I wouldn't send an article to on a bet, because they would reject it without bothering to look at it.
I'm afraid that there has been more and more politicization in the sciences, as well. That has always been the case to some degree, of course. Orthodox scientists with a stake in an accepted theory, for instance, aren't anxious to see it questioned or refuted. But nowadays the politics is much more widespread, because it involves leftist ideology and government grants supervised by ideologues. Foundation grants as well, I'm afraid.
Thank you for the ping.
The problem with peer review is the problem with any system. It ultimately is political and is only as ethical as the people heading the heap. It is also subject to ideological motivations. If they don't like you, don't like what you're talking about or disagree on ideological grounds, you won't get reviewed. The article smells of something.. mostly handwringing.
Depends on whos living in the hen house..
The chickens or the weasles.. When the clucking stops..
The guano has hit the fan..