Prescription Medicine

Nature Peer Review Trial and Debate

"Nature is undertaking a trial of a particular type of open peer review. In this trial, authors whose submissions to Nature are sent for peer review will also be offered the opportunity to participate in an open peer review process (see below for explanation). The trial is optional for authors; it will continue in parallel with Nature's usual procedures, and does not affect the likelihood of eventual publication of the submitted work. At the same time as the trial, Nature is running a web debate on peer review, to which we welcome comments from readers."

"The web debate contains a range of perspectives about peer review from those who believe it is working well, to those who prefer other options. What is the value of peer review, and how does it ensure quality? What are the ethical concerns? Are there viable alternatives, either technical or in terms of management of the process? And above all, what is the scientists' experience of the process, either as authors or as reviewers themselves? Nature's web debate provides a lively range of views, updated weekly."

redux [05.02.06]
The New York Times For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
[requires 'free' registration]

"Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system."

"Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication."

redux [03.02.06]
The Scientist Is Peer Review Broken?
[requires 'free' registration]

"Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really.

Indeed, an abundance of data from a range of journals suggests peer review does little to improve papers. "

redux [08.15.05]
The Boston Globe Flaws are found in validating medical studies

"Now, after a study that sent reverberations through the medical profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some specialists are calling for radical changes in the system."

In advance of a world congress on peer review next month in Chicago, these specialists are suggesting that reviewers drop their anonymity and allow comments to be published."

""It would be lovely to start anew and to set up a trial of peer review against no peer review," Rennie said. "But no journal is willing to risk it.""