Peer Review Revisited: It Really Needs to Change

Back in June of 2010 I made a posting here on our blog that considered peer review to be a largely bankrupt way to screen and validate research worthy of publication. This post extends the discussion I started in that post.


An important point to consider is that an increasing number of studies and journal editors are suggesting that peer review is a failure as currently practiced in the life sciences.


As food for thought consider the following:

1. This is old data, but worthy of attention. In a survey, only 8% of the members of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, agreed that peer review works well as currently applied. (Chubin and Hackett, 1990).
2. As a tool to filter out science worthy of publishing, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation. (Horrobin, 2001) Horrobin spoke strongly when he suggested the peer review system in a non-validated charade. Here's a link to his article  http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v19/n12/full/nbt1201-1099.html
3. Richard Smith's article: "Classical peer review: an empty gun" cites the Drummond Rennie quote: "If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws." (Rennie is a deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association and a supporting force behind the international congresses of peer review.)
4. In late April 2012 Carl Zimmer reported in the New York Times that according to a study made by PubMed that the number of articles retracted from scientific journals increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. Here is link to his piece: "Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform"
5. A couple more articles worth checking out
1. "What's wrong with peer review"
2. "Peer review is f***ed up -- let's fix it"