Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific.More.
Couple things: Peer review got started, some tell us, as a means of helping U librarians decided what journals to subscribe to. Einstein didn’t have peer reviewers because, back then, his peer were fellow Nobelists. After WWII, science became Big Business so millions of non-Nobelists were in it …
This is maybe a fight people need to be having, for a little while anyway.
See also: Clinical research mostly not useful; news tsunami anyway?
Follow UD News at Twitter!