My recent chat with John Batchelor broached the important subject of flawed, non-reproducible scientific studies that find their way into journals. It seems that replicating results is as rare as finding a unicorn at a science fair.
peer review
Another view of peer review
Automating the lawyers
As I grow old, I jettison the unnecessary
Sleep is not just for humans and other living creatures
Mega journals – peer-reviewed, open-access publishing of more than 2,000 articles annually – provided 6% of 2015’s scientific literature. Today, they publish nearly 25%. An opinion piece written in part by Dr. John Ioannidis, the researcher that everyone loves to hate or hates to love, considers the consequence of mega journals increasing dominance.
Advertising of worthless nostrums to prevent or cure illnesses is common. Often, it consists solely of anecdotes, but sometimes it is bolstered by statistical sleight of hand. Don't be fooled, because your health and your money may be in jeopardy.
"Peer review" of scientific articles before publication is often considered the "gold standard" of reliability, but its luster has become tarnished by greed – the desire of the research community to tap into research funds, the pressure on scientists to publish or perish, and publishers of scientific journals seeking to maximize profits.
Peer review is a failure
Methane rising
The Trolley Problem has multicultural answers
Heating with Nukes
Peer review, especially peer review of chemical safety/risk assessments, is under assault. Is something inherently wrong with the process of this area of peer review?
When science and money mix, science suffers. The pressure to publish and get grant money has corrupted researchers, who must "publish or perish" and get grants. This unholy alliance between the popular media and scholarly publications spawned the never-ending flow of sensationalistic results, especially those pertaining to human health effects.
Dr. Ioannidis is not just a bull in a china shop; he's a bazooka in a china shop. And now the bazooka is aimed at shoddy nutrition research, which he suggests is in need of "radical reform."
A well-publicized paper on suicide rates by occupation might have produced faulty data. A re-analysis is underway, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention taking action.
Typically, the peer review process is "single-blind," meaning that reviewers are aware of an author's identity. Yet it can also be "double-blind," where neither the author nor the reviewers know each other's identity. But, bottom line: Does knowing who wrote a paper influence the reviewer's opinion of it?
It is easy to see how the peer review process has flaws. How to fix those flaws is a bit more difficult. However, at the "Peer Review Congress" a group of scientists meets every four years to do just that, when they consider ongoing problems with the quality and credibility of science and discuss potential improvements.