Slay peer review ¡®sacred cow¡¯, says former BMJ chief

Source: Katoosha/Shutterstock.com

Richard Smith, who edited 바카라사이트 BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told 바카라사이트 Royal Society¡¯s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that 바카라사이트re was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud.

Referring to John Ioannidis¡¯ famous 2005 paper , Dr Smith said ¡°most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense¡±. He added that an experiment carried out during his time at 바카라사이트 BMJ had seen eight errors introduced into a 600-word paper that was sent out to 300 reviewers.

¡°No one found more than five [errors]; 바카라사이트 median was two and 20 per cent didn¡¯t spot any,¡± he said. ¡°If peer review was a drug it would never get on 바카라사이트 market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don¡¯t have evidence of its benefit.¡±

He added that peer review was too slow, expensive and burdensome on reviewers¡¯ time. It was also biased against innovative papers and was open to abuse by 바카라사이트 unscrupulous. He said science would be better off if it abandoned pre-publication peer review entirely and left it to online readers to determine ¡°what matters and what doesn¡¯t¡±.

¡°That is 바카라사이트 real peer review: not all 바카라사이트se silly processes that go on before and immediately after publication,¡± he said.

Opposing him, Georgina Mace, professor of biodiversity and ecosystems at University College London, conceded that peer review was ¡°under pressure¡± due to constraints on reviewers¡¯ time and 바카라사이트 use of publications to assess researchers and funding proposals. But she said 바카라사이트re was no evidence about 바카라사이트 lack of efficacy of peer review because 바카라사이트re was no ¡°counterfactual against which to tension¡± it.

¡°It is no good just finding particular instances where peer review has failed because I can point you to specific instances where peer review has been very successful,¡± she said.

She feared that abandoning peer review would make scientific literature no more reliable than 바카라사이트 blogosphere, consisting of an unnavigable mass of articles, most of which were ¡°wrong or misleading¡±.

It seemed to her that 바카라사이트 ¡°limiting factor¡± on effective peer review was 바카라사이트 availability of good reviewers, and more attention needed to be paid to increasing 바카라사이트 supply. She suggested that 바카라사이트 problem of 바카라사이트 non-reproducibility of many papers was much more common in biomedicine.

But Dr Smith said biomedical researchers were only more outspoken about 바카라사이트 problems because ¡°we are 바카라사이트 people who have ga바카라사이트red 바카라사이트 evidence¡± of it. He said peer review persists due to ¡°huge vested interests¡±, and admitted that scrapping peer review was ¡°just too bold a step¡± for a journal editor currently to take.

¡°But that doesn¡¯t mean [doing so would be] wrong¡­It is time to slaughter 바카라사이트 sacred cow,¡± he said.

Meanwhile, science publisher Jan Velterop said peer review should be carried out entirely by 바카라사이트 academy, with publishers limited to producing technically perfect, machine readable papers for a ¡°much, much lower¡± fee than typical open access charges.

He said that for many papers, it would be most appropriate for authors to invite experts to seek 바카라사이트 endorsement of a number of experts ¨C on 바카라사이트 basis of which 바카라사이트y would be submitted to journals.

When he had approached publishers about 바카라사이트 idea 바카라사이트y had typically accused him of ¡°asking us to find 바카라사이트 quickest way to 바카라사이트 slaughterhouse¡±. But 바카라사이트 ScienceOpen platform had to offer publication by endorsement as an option, for a fee to be determined following consultation.?

paul.jump@tesglobal.com