Peer review: the seal of quality?
How peer review is touted as the mark of scientific scrutiny but evidence of its effects are lacking. Its use as an insurance policy by editors has allowed poor science and censorship to proliferate
In the early 1990s, an extraordinary mixed group of impressive journal editors, researchers, writers and academics came together to investigate all aspects of editorial peer review.
Grounded on early international congresses of peer review, the group asked itself four key questions: What is (editorial) peer review? What are the aims of peer review? Does it work, and what are the unintended consequences?
The history of editorial peer review has never been charted, but we think its modern version is founded on the bedside consultation model.
A patient (the submitted manuscript) would be assessed by a generalist physician (editor). If the editor did not know quite what to make of the patient's ailments (in this case, the manuscript), specialists would be called in (e.g. a statistician, an economist, a consultant or a researcher in the speciality or topic) and would reach a verdict in the consultation.
One of the fundamental aspects of research is the slow progressive build-up of knowledg…
