• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

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

natasa778

Senior Member
Messages
1,774
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...tered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html

The peer review process – long considered the gold standard of quality scientific research – is a “sacred cow” that should be slaughtered, the former editor of one of the country’s leading medical journals has said.

Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed that “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”.

...
He said the process of peer review before publication could also work against innovative papers, was open to abuse, and should be done away with in favour of “the real peer review” of the wider scientific community post-publication.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
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.
 

JaimeS

Senior Member
Messages
3,408
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
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
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
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:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Probably what should stop is the idea that peer review is the final say.
Agree. Passing peer review is only gaining admission to the highest level of the debate, not a guarantee of validity.

Also the little clubs/cliques need to be broken up.
Best done by transparent peer-review. Time for the anonymity thing to go.
 
Last edited: