Two interesting quote about peer review, in which we sometimes have near-theological faith in our day and age:
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. -- Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association [Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (March 19, 2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research". JAMA 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438] The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. -- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet [Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580] Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 On 4 October 2010 05:34, Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is peer review of today, I presume ... > > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ... > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Mon, 4 October, 2010 4:13:05 AM > > Subject: [Goanet] Science for sale ... > > > > And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an "I scratch > > your back and you scratch mine."
