Georg Steinhauser, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A. Bendall, Yvonne S. Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony Brink, Darin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castaño, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B. Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin del Kebos, Michele DeRinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Rött, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Sophie Felsmann, Jarl Flensmark, Andrew K. Fletcher, Michaela Foster, Kostas N. Fountoulakis, Jim Fouratt, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Florian Gittler, Georg Gittler & Go
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (5):359-376 (2012)
Abstract |
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being “filtered out” or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses
|
Keywords | Peer review Academic freedom Editorial policy Periodicals as topic Innovation Scientific hypotheses David F. Horrobin |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Epistemic Consequences of Bibliometrics-Based Evaluation: Insights From the Scientific Community.Tommaso Castellani, Emanuele Pontecorvo & Adriana Valente - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (4):398-419.
Similar books and articles
The Principles and Practices of Peer Review.Ronald N. Kostoff - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):19-34.
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.
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.
Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Peer-Review and Patents: Why the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg is a Red Herring.Sivaramjani Thambisetty & Kartik Kumaramangalam - unknown
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown
Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
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.
Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2013-03-10
Total views
79 ( #126,401 of 2,411,732 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #75,158 of 2,411,732 )
2013-03-10
Total views
79 ( #126,401 of 2,411,732 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #75,158 of 2,411,732 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads