Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I received many interesting comments on my rant about peer review yesterday. I admit that I was angry that a relatively important article got savaged by reviewers who I thought were a bit too picky and missed the value of the paper.
I still worry about the question posed above. We all know too many examples of peer review failing. Reviewers come with biases, and those biases can hinder publications.
Amazingly this article came through on twitter this morning – I’m a believer.
The process of science for the last three hundred and more years is based on peer review. Other scientists check your work and say yup, that looks OK or no, you need to do this other experiment or read these papers. Unfortunately some reviewers (and I stress, these people are peers, that is they are your equals; not some shadowy cabal curating or judging Science from on high) do seem to hold personal grudges, or have strange agendas, or simply not be very good. (And yes, sometimes your own work is pants and should be rejected. Deal with it.)
This leads to people making wide-ranging and inflammatory statements such as “peer review is broken.” Some of them even write letters about it (as reported by the Beeb, six months later). This leads to calls for making the peer review process ‘open‘; i.e. publishing the correspondence between the reviewers and the editors, and maybe even removing the anonymity part.
Peer review, while it does have some advantages, still has significant flaws. Peer review can help but it can do great damage.
I do think we can do better. We can advance science in different ways than our current system.
Who reviews the reviewers?
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.