Peer review existed before it was called that, and was conducted by honest, properly-qualified people committed to impartiality. Peer review today is compromised by conflicts of interest, some of which are monetary, but others of which arise from membership of academic cliques - informal groups which work to secure publication space and academic appointments for each other, an aim partly achieved by excluding others.
In light of the emerging evidence of corruption of the broad biomedical literature corpus it’s no wonder there are rising numbers of patients who distrust our advice, even when informed by “evidence.” This is a crisis at a deep level, which demands solutions. Recognition and reporting of these abuses by our colleagues such as “Trust the Evidence” is far better than hearing partial truths from some of the so-called fringe journalists. I’m looking forward to serious suggestions and solutions to save medical science from impending implosion.
The trouble is that for many specialised papers there is only a small pool of reviewers who might have sufficient knowledge to do the review, and they have that knowledge because they are involved in research in the field that may well be sponsored. If we are to remove all conflicts then either there will be no-one to do a review, or departments will lose so much funding they cannot do the work in the first place. Of course the scrutiny by independents post-publication has been vastly increased following the Covid event, leading to the revealing of trial flaws, corrupt analysis of data and undeclared conflicts of interest. Several names spring to mind, including Heneghan, Jefferson, Fenton and Neill. Eventually they will shame the establishment into submission. I hope.
Being involved in peer reviews myself (non paid, not associated with any industry, in the veterinary world) I can tell you how difficult it is not always straightforward. Playing devils advocate, it is frequently difficult to find reviewers (everyone is busy) and for me personally I find any paper with an elaborate use of statistics quite tricky to review.
Furthermore with the ever increasing list of publications on any one subject it is quite difficult to know it all….
Clacton on Sea has a lovely pier…. Sorry, not being flippant I am becoming increasingly unsurprised by the depth of nefarious behaviour since the debacle over the last few years.
Peer review existed before it was called that, and was conducted by honest, properly-qualified people committed to impartiality. Peer review today is compromised by conflicts of interest, some of which are monetary, but others of which arise from membership of academic cliques - informal groups which work to secure publication space and academic appointments for each other, an aim partly achieved by excluding others.
In light of the emerging evidence of corruption of the broad biomedical literature corpus it’s no wonder there are rising numbers of patients who distrust our advice, even when informed by “evidence.” This is a crisis at a deep level, which demands solutions. Recognition and reporting of these abuses by our colleagues such as “Trust the Evidence” is far better than hearing partial truths from some of the so-called fringe journalists. I’m looking forward to serious suggestions and solutions to save medical science from impending implosion.
The trouble is that for many specialised papers there is only a small pool of reviewers who might have sufficient knowledge to do the review, and they have that knowledge because they are involved in research in the field that may well be sponsored. If we are to remove all conflicts then either there will be no-one to do a review, or departments will lose so much funding they cannot do the work in the first place. Of course the scrutiny by independents post-publication has been vastly increased following the Covid event, leading to the revealing of trial flaws, corrupt analysis of data and undeclared conflicts of interest. Several names spring to mind, including Heneghan, Jefferson, Fenton and Neill. Eventually they will shame the establishment into submission. I hope.
Being involved in peer reviews myself (non paid, not associated with any industry, in the veterinary world) I can tell you how difficult it is not always straightforward. Playing devils advocate, it is frequently difficult to find reviewers (everyone is busy) and for me personally I find any paper with an elaborate use of statistics quite tricky to review.
Furthermore with the ever increasing list of publications on any one subject it is quite difficult to know it all….
Agree entirely.
The Ethics Menu-
Bling Eye- 2 Grand
Rationalization -5 Grand
Lipstick on a Pig- 10 Grand
Multiple Hostages- Big Bucks
That's Blind Eye......
Laser refractive surgery has been very heavily affected by this.
Getting papers published on reduced contrast sensitivity and dry eyes was exceptionally hard.
The surgeons reviewing it were keen to build their private practices.
I left the sector as I wouldn't use that tool.
Clacton on Sea has a lovely pier…. Sorry, not being flippant I am becoming increasingly unsurprised by the depth of nefarious behaviour since the debacle over the last few years.
I reviewed the pier when we stayed there recently. I'll tell you how good it is if you pay me!