Stetson Law Review 36 (3) (2007)
Peer review and publication is one of the factors proposed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as indicia of the reliability of scientific testimony. This Article traces the origins of the peer-review system, the process by which it became standard at scientific and medical journals, and the many roles it now plays. Additionally, the Author articulates the epistemological rationale for pre-publication peer-review and the inherent limitations of the system as a scientific quality-control mechanism. The Article explores recent changes in science, in scientific publishing, and in the academy that have put the system under strain. The Author argues that Justice Blackmun's advice to courts - that peer-reviewed publication is relevant, but is not dispositive - is of little practical help. Instead, the Author suggests questions that courts should ask in assessing the significance of the fact that testimony is, or is not, based on peer-reviewed publication and illustrates with reference to another Bendectin case, Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where some of these questions were asked.
|Keywords||Peer review Scientific testimony|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Embedded Epistemologist: Dispatches From the Legal Front.Susan Haack - 2012 - Ratio Juris 25 (2):206-235.
The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence.Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Similar books and articles
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Should Biomedical Publishing Be “Opened Up”? Toward a Values-Based Peer-Review Process.Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge, Stacy Carter & Miles Little - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (3):267-280.
Advances in Peer Review Research: An Introduction.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.David B. Resnik, Christina Gutierrez-Ford & Shyamal Peddada - 2008 - Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):305-310.
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Referees, Editors, and Publication Practices: Improving the Reliability and Usefulness of the Peer Review System.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):51-62.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #142,146 of 2,164,544 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #347,971 of 2,164,544 )
How can I increase my downloads?