by David F. Horrobin
http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/95/viewpts/op_ed
Reprinted with permission from Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 22,
No. 2, February 2001
Posted February 2, 2001 · Issue 95
Abstract
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.
http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/95/viewpts/op_ed
Reprinted with permission from Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 22,
No. 2, February 2001
Posted February 2, 2001 · Issue 95
Abstract
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui.
+++++
Background, Motivation, and Purpose
In a survey of members of the Scientific Research Society, "only 8% agreed that 'peer review works well as it is'." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).
"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science." (Horrobin, 2001)
Empirical studies have shown that assessments made by independent reviewers of papers submitted to journals and abstracts submitted to conferences are no reproducible, i.e. agreement between reviewers is about what is expected by chance alone. Rothwell and Martyn (2000), for example, analyzed the statistical correlations among reviewers' recommendations (made to two journals and two conferences) by analysis of variance and found out that for one journal "was not significantly greater than that expected by chance" and, in general, agreement between reviewers "was little greater than would be expected by chance alone."
These are just three examples of an increasing number of facts that are indicating that more research and reflections are urgently needed on research quality assurance and, specifically, on Peer Review. "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" (Goodstein, 2000). "Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin, 2001). Why not apply peer review to current peer reviewing methodologies.
Research and reflections on Peer Review have been mainly addressed by Bio-medical communities, and the results have been mostly shared via five International Congresses on "Peer Review in Biomedical Publication", the first of which was held in 1990. The sixth of these congresses will be held on September 2010 and is being organized by the Journal of The American Medical Association (JAMA) and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Publishing Group.
+++++
The 2nd International Symposium on
Peer Reviewing: ISPR 2010 in the context of The 4th International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2010
June 29th - July 2nd, 2010 – Orlando, Florida, USA
Peer Reviewing: ISPR 2010 in the context of The 4th International Conference on Knowledge Generation, Communication and Management: KGCM 2010
June 29th - July 2nd, 2010 – Orlando, Florida, USA
About the Conference
In a survey of members of the Scientific Research Society, "only 8% agreed that 'peer review works well as it is'." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).
"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science." (Horrobin, 2001)
Empirical studies have shown that assessments made by independent reviewers of papers submitted to journals and abstracts submitted to conferences are no reproducible, i.e. agreement between reviewers is about what is expected by chance alone. Rothwell and Martyn (2000), for example, analyzed the statistical correlations among reviewers' recommendations (made to two journals and two conferences) by analysis of variance and found out that for one journal "was not significantly greater than that expected by chance" and, in general, agreement between reviewers "was little greater than would be expected by chance alone."
These are just three examples of an increasing number of facts that are indicating that more research and reflections are urgently needed on research quality assurance and, specifically, on Peer Review. "Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice" (Goodstein, 2000). "Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science…why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process" (Horrobin, 2001). Why not apply peer review to current peer reviewing methodologies.
Research and reflections on Peer Review have been mainly addressed by Bio-medical communities, and the results have been mostly shared via five International Congresses on "Peer Review in Biomedical Publication", the first of which was held in 1990. The sixth of these congresses will be held on September 2010 and is being organized by the Journal of The American Medical Association (JAMA) and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Publishing Group.
...
