Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by natasa778, May 6, 2015.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nail on head. Transparency, including declaration of associations and interests.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.