August 8th, 2016: Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Jody Smith joins with other ME voices in honor of Understanding and Remembrance Day for Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

BMJ blog on problems with peer review [Jul 14] with links to similar articles

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Esther12, Aug 25, 2014.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    Sometimes when discussing problems around CFS research, one can run in to people who talk as if peer review is rather more effective than it seems to be. Amongst researchers there's far more of an awareness of the problems here, and this might provide useful references to those who want to make that point:

    http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/07/31/jane-feinmann-a-way-forward-for-quality-peer-review/

    It's also a nice easy to read summary.
     
    Ren, Bob, Simon and 3 others like this.
  2. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,528
    Likes:
    35,244
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    My underlining. Like any studies we know? Where was this training for the PACE trial? We need reviewers who know what they are doing, and sadly its fairly rare in some areas of medicine.
     
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    When the peer reviewers have themselves built their careers upon positive claims about the treatments being assessed, they may not be that helpful even with the right training!
     
    Valentijn likes this.
  4. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,528
    Likes:
    35,244
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Yes, this is an obvious caveat. However this arises in part because reviewers are chosen from within a school of thought. Other independent psychiatrists and psychologists could be chosen, who have the right training.

    I am concerned though that psychiatry is so pervasively filled with bad research methodology that it might require a non-psychiatrist reviewer. Even medicine is not such a great place. A medical scientist might be the best choice as reviewer, not a doctor. However this is sufficiently removed from psychiatry that I expect pushback from psychiatrists who claim such a reviewer is not qualified.

    I think the answer to this is to have methodology reviewers and content reviewers. A methodology reviewer would be a scientist with the appropriate training, including statistics. A content reviewer would be an independent psychiatrist.
     
    Persimmon, Cheshire and Valentijn like this.
  5. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Probably the single most effective change to the peer review process that would help overcome these problems is to abandon anonymous reviewing. The lack of transparency and accountability arising from anonymity is the main reason poor quality reviewing persists.
     
  6. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,528
    Likes:
    35,244
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    That is part of the mix I would recommend. :)
     
    Sean likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page