Re: The religion of peer review

[Libby Feil <l.feil@sjcpl.org>]

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...
--