The Challenge with Peer Review

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Came across this interesting article in the NeuroLogica blog today. Goes into the ups and downs of peer review and asks if the current system is broken, or just needs to be updated. As much as we rely on peer review to vet our sources, understand the science and technology in the world, and basically use it as a way to make sure that we're not just fooling ourselves or falling victim to bad science/bad research, I figured this might be something that we, as a group of nerds and geeks, may want to discuss. Nothing really to debunk, this thread is specifically about opinions of and about the peer review process.

Fully article: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/faking-peer-review/#comments
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeG

Senior Member.
I served on our university promotion committee for a number of years. It was an interesting experience in that there was an array of best and worst behaviors with respect to academic credentials.

Some faculty published in journals where they actually served as editors or on the board of directors. Other faculty sought out journals with names that sounded academic, but were specifically designed to produce publications for promotion in specific disciplines. Some paid to have the manuscripts published in so-called "vanity" presses. I learned the contract term "subvention" that way.

On the good side, however, is the general accountability produced by a particular discipline or the general public domain. All thesis statements, research, and conclusions are subject to scrutiny, which becomes the ultimate arbiter of academic credibility. So in reality, there are multiple layers of peer review. Avoiding that process exposes a scholar to what happened to J. Marvin Herndon, something that any reasonable person, especially someone at a college or university wants to avoid at all costs.

You can only lose your credibility once.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Some faculty published in journals where they actually served as editors or on the board of directors.

This is kind of what the article points to.. this SHOULD be considered a conflict of interest and not allowed under peer review for any reason. I know scientists are known for objectivity and being honest, but as you pointed out Mike people get weird when their careers and paychecks are on the line. The article also points out how frustrating it is for follow ups to be done when the data is flawed or wrong to begin with.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
This is kind of what the article points to.. this SHOULD be considered a conflict of interest and not allowed under peer review for any reason. I know scientists are known for objectivity and being honest, but as you pointed out Mike people get weird when their careers and paychecks are on the line. The article also points out how frustrating it is for follow ups to be done when the data is flawed or wrong to begin with.

One thing that I've learned over the course of an academic career is that professors are just like the rest of humanity, with all the inherent faults and talents.

It is one of the reasons why the peer review process for tenure and promotion has so many redundant (department, dean, university) layers. Due diligence and transparency are easy if it is accompanied by good faith on all sides, but that doesn't always happen.

Or, as you point out, sometimes the data is flawed. But again, it comes back to why peer review, with a little humility added, can be a very good thing for a career.

My two cents
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
yep, i agree.. and Humility is the key word there. I think peer review's gotten complacent somewhat.. dont misunderstand, I think its a great thing and Im glad we have it, I just happen to agree with the author that it might not be a bad time to revamp it a bit.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window] Conspiracy Theories 5
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
TWCobra Skyderalert Whistleblower challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Truthnow A challenge to you to discuss this openly Contrails and Chemtrails 62
TWCobra Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 283
Critical Thinker Role reversal challenge: Disprove we are not "in the Matrix" Practical Debunking 43
Hama Neggs Challenge from Dane Wigington General Discussion 71
I Chemtrail Challenge! Prize offered! Contrails and Chemtrails 7
C CAJeffO's chemtrail debate challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 45
Jay Reynolds Debate challenge for John Hammell of IAHF Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TWCobra Chemtrail debate challenge. Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science Contrails and Chemtrails 8
FreiZeitGeist New Blog: The Chemtrails Challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Boston peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required Contrails and Chemtrails 79
HoaxEye My book review and my own rabbit hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
Mick West Book Review: "9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation" 9/11 28
Mick West Review: Flat Earth - The History of an Infamous Idea - Christine Garwood Flat Earth 39
Mick West How Rare (or Common) are Haloes, Sun Dogs, etc? A Review of the Literature Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Boston GMO's myths and truths. Heavily noted review of the claims of the GMO giants General Discussion 191
JFDee BBC: "Too much weight to fringe views", says review Practical Debunking 4

Election 2020

Related Articles

Top