Let’s stop pretending #peer_review works
In the early 1980s, there was growing concern about the quality of peer review at scientific journals. So two researchers at Cornell and the University of North Dakota decided to run a little experiment to test the process.
The idea behind peer review is simple: It’s supposed to weed out bad science. Peer reviewers read over promising studies that have been submitted to a journal to help gauge whether they should be published or need changes. Ideally, reviewers are experts in fields related to the studies in question. They add helpful comments, point out problems and holes, or simply reject flawed papers that shouldn’t see the light of day.
The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.
▻http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
#édition_scientifique #revues_scientifiques #science #université