Peer Review: Expert reading of anonymous research papers to decide quality and value of report.
Experts are not randomly chosen, can often find the source from style and data, and have usual human frailties and personal biases. Editor has veto power using personal biases t stop conflicting evidence.
Twenty eight years ago, while a member of the faculty of a highly regarded cancer treatment and research university department, a fellow professor angrily entered the office. Investigating the cause of his dismay lead to an understanding of systematic failures in the academic system. His paper comparing to different cancer treatment methods surgery alone vs surgery plus adjuvant treatment, approved by two peer reviewers, was vetoed by the surgery journal editor. My colleague had just completed a phone call with the editor who admitted there was no problem with the paper and made no recommendations for improvement. He “just did not believe it”.
This group of surgeons became progressively aggressive at politically positioning themselves as “the experts” on cancers in the limited anatomy of their specialty and are called on to create policy. They have no training in the broad range of cancer treatment, limited knowledge of cancer biology, and limited information within their own area due to the Journalistic biases.
Similar examples have been seen since and not just with medical research. The famous fraudulent treatment of weather “observations” to “prove” global warming did not create an adequate uproar for process improvement. Instead, it proved that vested interests are blind to the potential for biased “research” to send us down an unproven path, weather medically, scientifically, socially, nationally or internationally.
The claims of “research”, “scientist”, and “findings” are never truly audited. The IRS would never just accept claims of a taxpayer without reviewing the original documentation and that only affects one person and some money. Why do we accept claims of a “scientist” without the same rigorous review?
(see link below for information of scientific misconduct)
Related articles
- Jury Duty – Putting Peer-Review Into a Tougher Context (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org)
- The Empty Rituals of Peer Review (onlyagame.typepad.com)
- Peer review – senseful publications (fullandby.me)
- Socio Legal Review, 3rd Annual Essay Competition, 2013 (knowledgesteez.wordpress.com)
- BAD Science or BAD Science Journalism? – A Response to Daniel Lakens (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
- Bad medicine infiltrates M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (genome.fieldofscience.com)
- Cancer Treatment: Know Your Options (everydayhealth.com)
- An Alternative to Peer Review, or a New Format for Peer Review? (coordinationproblem.org)
- Bad Medicine Infiltrates MD Anderson Cancer Center (forbes.com)
