In “Trial and Error: The scientific system does little to prevent scientific fraud. Is there a better way?” , New York Times Magazine, January 15, 2006, author David Dobbs, in the wake of the Hwang Woo Suk cloning fraud, says:
“Journal editors say they can’t prevent fraud. In an absolute sense, they’re right. But they could make fraud harder to commit. Some critics, including some journal editors, argue that it would help to open up the typically closed peer-review system, in which anonymous scientists review a submitted paper and suggest revisions. Developed after World War II, closed peer review was meant to ensure candid evaluations and elevate merit over personal connections. But its anonymity allows reviewers to do sloppy work, steal ideas or delay competitors’ publication by asking for elaborate revisions (it happens) without fearing exposure. And it catches error and fraud no better than good editors do. ‘The evidence against peer review keeps getting stronger,’ says Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, ‘while the evidence on the upside is weak.’ Yet peer review has become a sacred cow, largely because passing peer review confers great prestige–and often tenure.”
Suggested solutions are open peer review, where “reviewers are known and thus accountable to both author and public” and open-source reviewing, where “the journal posts a submitted paper online and allows not just assigned reviewers but anyone to critique it. After a few weeks, the author revises, the editors accept or reject and the journal posts all, including the editors’ rationale.” The British Medical Journal has not used closed peer review since 1999.
{ 3 comments }
….the common-sense solution is to have ‘both’ open & closed peer review…. they check & balance each other.
Actually, the British Medical Journal went open on strictly ethical grounds: “A court with an unidentified judge makes us think immediately of totalitarian states and the world of Franz Kafka.” Also see Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity and Are Traditional Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles Obsolete?.
Hey there! I’ve just run into an awesome website on the net – and just couldn’t miss the chance to tell the world about it.
Anybody here who remembers how things used to go back in 1990s when usenet was popular and people were sending
pics and messages back and forth in that network through dialup connections?
Well, this is what this site is based on! Boy, I’ve never seen a collection of content
as huge as this before! Dozens or maybe even hundreds of terabytes of high-quality video and photo
content, user-friendly navigation system, video clip previews… Alright, you better go and check
this site out yourself. By the way, this site is intended for adults, so if you are not 18 yet, better
close this topic and pretend you have never seen it, alright? Yeah, I know that spamming is bad – so if
you want to hit this site, simply get the link to it in my profile. Best regards to moderators!
Comments on this entry are closed.