1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS and Beating the Clock
For Jody Smith, the ticking of a clock was enough at one time to chase her back to her bed. But with the passage of time, she has been able to reclaim her living room ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

2012: Bias in peer review: Carole J. Lee1, Cassidy R. Sugimoto2, Guo Zhang2, Blaise

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Esther12, Sep 22, 2013.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes:
    4,901
    Open Access:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/full

    Actually - just realised how long this paper is. I'm going to have to come back to this when I'm feeling fresher.
    alex3619 likes this.
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes:
    4,901
    I pulled out the bits of most interest. Personally, I didn't think it was worth reading, but for those interested in this area, having a skim through the highlights might be a fun-fun-fun.

    They sum up the situation & possible problems here (probably not news to people already interested in this area:

    (This article could have been more concisely written imo, *grumble*)

    The go through lots of different potential forms of bias, with this one being likely to be the most relevant to people here imo:

    Another couple:

    The spell Wessely wrong here... oh-oh, harassment!

    They discuss different types of peer review.

    I'm totally in favour of open peer review, and more of an emphasis on post-publication criticism. The arguments against this seem to reveal to me how deeply flawed our systems are:

    Here's the conclusion:

    Shell and biophile like this.
  3. Shell

    Shell Senior Member

    Messages:
    477
    Likes:
    612
    England
    I think one area of peer-review that makes it untenable is power structures. By calling it "peer" review we are supposed to believe that those who review research, studies and even articles are on the same power level as those they review. This isn't often the case. People with powerful politics and of course money behind them are able to ensure that criticism of their work either doesn't happen or doesn't get published or are ridiculed.
    The standards for publication seem pretty low as well. Whatever happened to never making assertions without data to back them?
    I've had the impression that so-called peers reviewing research is just an exercise in ticking a mate's box as well as possible fears of bucking the system.
    There's also a truly 'orrible trend of rewarding failure. I used to call it promoting them out of the way, but in some cases there seems to be a deliberate promotion of those who can lie with impunity.
    While this is happening science is dead in the water.
    Sean and Valentijn like this.
  4. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Likes:
    4,901
    That's an even more negative view of how peer review currently works than my own!
    Shell and Sean like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page