Peer review under scrutiny

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

See this, from Veterinary Sciences Tomorrow

http://www.vetscite.org/cgi-

bin/pw.exe/Issue4/news/000953.htm

 

Phil

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Peer review under scrutiny: 12 February 2003: Hard on the

heels of another body's report questioning some of the

benefits of peer review, the Royal Society, the leading

academic scientific institution in Britain, is to investigate the

peer review process because of concerns that abuses of

the current system have dented public confidence in

science.

 

A working party, under the leadership of Society vice

president Patrick Bateson, is being set up to review the

process and highlight best practices in the publication of

scientific literature.

 

The aim is to examine possible flaws in the current

mechanism for peer review, explore potential alternatives

and highlight for the general public what to look for when

judging the significance of a report on new research.

 

" We want to find ways of reassuring people that what the

majority of scientists do is trustworthy, " Bateson told the

BBC Radio 4 programme Today last week. " At the moment

there is a lot of mistrust. "

 

While peer review itself will be a major focus of the effort,

the Society also has concerns about the ways research

results can end up reaching the media before going through

the peer review process, such as through conferences,

handouts and press briefings.

 

As part of its investigation, it will consult researchers,

journal publishers, journalists and the wider public about

how scientists should make known their findings. The end

result, it says, will be two important documents - one a set

of guidelines on best practice in releasing the results of

scientific research, the other a " Science Brief " aimed at the

public and offering practical advice on interpreting the

importance of results.

 

The ten-member working group will include researchers,

publishers and representatives from the media and is

expected to complete its project by September of this year.

Between now and then, it is expected the group will meet

three or four times to discuss the issues.

 

Just last month, the Cochrane Collaboration, which

periodically reviews scientific and medical data, released its

report, " Editorial Peer Review for Improving the Quality of

Reports of Biomedical Studies, " in which it concluded there

is little evidence to show peer review upholds good science.

 

To make the peer review system more transparent, some

leading medical journals, such as the British Medical

Journal, are exploring open peer review, in which

manuscripts are posted on the Internet, along with signed

reviews and comments from third party interests.

 

Labour MP Ian Gibson, chair of the House of Commons

Science and Technology Committee, applauded the Royal

Society's decision. " It's very welcome because peer review

is an old process which needs re-examining, " Gibson told

The Scientist.

 

Links for this article:

P. Hagan. Review queries usefulness of peer review.

January 28, 2003.

{ HYPERLINK " http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030128/05/ "

}http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030128/05/

 

The Royal Society: { HYPERLINK " http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ "

}http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

 

BBC Radio 4 Today programme:

{ HYPERLINK " http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/ "

}http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

 

Cochrane Library: { HYPERLINK " http://www.cochrane.org/ "

}http://www.cochrane.org/

 

BMJ: { HYPERLINK " http://www.bmj.com " }http://www.bmj.com

 

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:

{ HYPERLINK " http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/s & thome.htm "

}http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/s & thome.htm

 

The Scientist, 3 February 2003

 

{ HYPERLINK " http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030203/04/ " }Original web page

at The Scientist: http://www.the-

scientist.com/

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

WWW :

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

[Guest guest]

Phil,

 

Thanks for posting this. It's a necessary thing

for everyone involved in the development and

dissemination of research information, from

the clinicians and wet scientists to the general public

to question and constantly seek to improve

every step of the process.

 

We published an article in CAOM a couple

of years ago that brings into question

the validity of the whole model of statistical

inference that plays such a fundamental

role in design and reporting of clinical

trials. Common wisdom tells us that the numbers

don't lie. But do we really understand what

such a statement means?

 

I also want to mention that one of the

reasons why I push so relentlessly for

people to get familiar with the language

and literature is that these both connect

and lead directly to the modes of thinking

that underlie traditional Chinese medical

strategy. And I think that more than

anything, what the world needs now are

some new strategic approaches, even if they

happen to be rather old.

 

Anyhow, thanks, again for posting it.

 

Ken