The 12th Invest in ME Conference, Part 1
OverTheHills presents the first article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME international Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Scientific peer reviews should be slaughtered, says former editor of BMJ

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by natasa778, May 6, 2015.

  1. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes:
    2,456
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...tered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html

     
    cigana, Valentijn, Cheshire and 5 others like this.
  2. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,488
    Likes:
    15,021
    That is very interesting. I wonder how many other journal editors might concur with his opinion. Generally I understand that peer review is considered important, because I believe the reason open access journals are distrusted by some is due to concerns about peer review quality in these journals.
     
  3. JaimeS

    JaimeS Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,205
    Likes:
    11,822
    Mid-Ohio Valley, United States
    I'm not really sure what to make of this. So we should just publish whatever and assume the cream will rise to the top?

    The suggestion to incentivize more critical reviewers could potentially backfire, but I am definitely more for an overhaul of the peer review process rather than throwing out the idea of review entirely.

    I just read a scientific article for a class, and I can't believe it was ever published. The writing was atrocious, the narrative was meandering. (Idea X! I mean, Idea Y! I mean - oh, yeah, there was another thing about idea X! UGH.) It was repetitive too, returning not just to the same ideas but the same narrative in a cyclical fashion. And this leaves out its factual errors of which there were more than a few.

    Only one author. I guess no one peer reviewed his work. ;)

    -J
     
    Valentijn, sarah darwins and SOC like this.
  4. WillowJ

    WillowJ คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl

    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes:
    4,843
    WA, USA
    I think that's all true ("no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors"; lots of published stuff is "nonsense"; and "the process of peer review before publication could also work against innovative papers, was open to abuse," and there is value in post-publication review).

    Probably what should stop is the idea that peer review is the final say.

    Also the little clubs/cliques need to be broken up.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
    cigana and Valentijn like this.
  5. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    Agree. Passing peer review is only gaining admission to the highest level of the debate, not a guarantee of validity.

    Best done by transparent peer-review. Time for the anonymity thing to go.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2015
    WillowJ, Valentijn, JaimeS and 5 others like this.
  6. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes:
    10,485
    Cornwall, UK
    Nail on head. Transparency, including declaration of associations and interests.
     
    Sean, Valentijn and Sasha like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page