When I teach research methods, a major focus is peer review. As a process, peer review evaluates academic papers for their quality, integrity and impact on a field, largely shaping what scientists accept as “knowledge.” By instinct, any academic follows up a new idea with the question, “Was that peer reviewed?” Although I believe in the […] … learn more→

I’ve been doing some work. How don’t get me wrong, I love literature work. But I am finding it all a bit same old same old right now. All the papers read the sme, even though they have different things to say. Yawn. I think I have an explanation for why that’s so. There’s a […] … learn more→

The polarization of the discussions but also the scale of the public health issues in the debate on the scientific reliability of preprints have not always allowed the general public to grasp the importance of the peer review process – also called “evaluation” – for the functioning of the scientific community. The publishing model in today’s academic […] … learn more→

Peer review is a central part of academic publication. The process of back and forth between authors and reviewers is meant, in part, to ensure the quality and novelty of articles. Many journals use what is known as a double-blind process in peer review – neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s names. […] … learn more→

I’m planning some renovations in the house, so I’m learning about party wall surveyors. Their role is to resolve disputes between neighbours. But, strikingly, no matter who appoints them or pays for their services, party wall surveyors do not act on behalf of either neighbour. Rather, they act “for the wall”. Science, too, is a […] … learn more→

Our “peer review” system of publishing research is clearly highly flawed. In less objective fields like psychology, past half of such published research has been shown to be not reproducible. Some of this research has been foundational to psychology, such as the famous Stanford Prison Experiment…despite the fame, it’s a fraud. In medicine, we also […] … learn more→

Every research-active academic is familiar with the process of peer review. Certainly, there are differences between disciplines, and debates over double-blind, single-blind and open (in all its different forms) continue to rage. But, fundamentally, most academics with whom I speak hold up peer review as the “gold standard” to which we should subject work. Yet, […] … learn more→