[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The religion of peer review



I've seen much discussion of this topic recently, in part because of the stem cell research debacle, but I have to agree that peer review usually does "work." I think that the real problem is that many people do not understand what peer review is meant to accomplish. It is not a defense against outright fraud, because peer reviewers read journal articles, not researchers' notebooks. However, what it can do and usually in fact does quite well is point out errors in results or methodologies, weaknesses in arguments, and unwarranted conclusions. As someone who has worked in a journal's editorial office and also has submitted work for peer review, I can attest personally to the usefulness and thoroughness of most peer review. In my view, this great gift of unpaid labor is a great service to the research community.

Elizabeth "Libby" Feil

Reference Librarian and Assistant Manager
Reference & Information Services Department
St. Joseph County Public Library
304 So. Main Street
South Bend, IN 46601

574-235-4181
l.feil@sjcpl.org
AIM: sjcpllibby
http://www.libraryforlife.org/localhistory


From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The religion of peer review
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:50:12 EST

Peer review is just qualified specialists vetting the work of
their fellow-specialists before further specialists risk the time
and effort of trying to build on it. Sometimes it's about
protecting the public from health risk.

A religion - Anyone have a better idea? No vetting? Unqualified
vetting? Opinion polls? Pot luck?

No one who has had to sit for a quarter century in a journal
editorial office dealing with raw, unfiltered submissions has any
doubt about the value, indeed the necessity, of qualified,
answerable vetting, to protect researchers time and effort; but
armchair speculation about it will no doubt proceed apace...
--