Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Georg Steinhauser (1)
Wolfram Adlassnig
Jesaka Ahau Risch
Serena Anderlini
Petros Arguriou
Aaron Zolen Armendariz
William Bains
Clark Baker
Martin Barnes
Jonathan Barnett
Michael Baumgartner
Thomas Baumgartner
Charles A. Bendall
Yvonne S. Bender
Max Bichler
Teresa Biermann
Ronaldo Bini
Eduardo Blanco
John Bleau
Anthony Brink
Darin Brown
Christopher Burghuber
Roy Calne
Brian Carter
Cesar Casta帽o
Peter Celec
Maria Eugenia Celis
Nicky Clarke
David Cockrell
David Collins
Brian Coogan
Jennifer Craig
Cal Crilly
David Crowe
Antonei B. Csoka
Chaza Darwich
Topiciprin del Kebos
Michele DeRinaldi
Bongani Dlamini
Tomasz Drewa
Michael Dwyer
Fabienne Eder
Ra煤l Ehrichs de Palma
Dean Esmay
Catherine Evans R枚tt
Christopher Exley
Robin Falkov
Celia Ingrid Farber
William Fearn
Sophie Felsmann
Jarl Flensmark
Andrew K. Fletcher
Michaela Foster
Kostas N. Fountoulakis
Jim Fouratt
Jesus Garcia Blanca
Manuel Garrido Sotelo
Florian Gittler
Georg Gittler
Juan Gomez
Juan F. Gomez
Maria Grazia Gonzales Polar
Jossina Gonzalez
Christoph G枚sselsberger
Lynn Habermacher
Michael Hajek
Faith Hakala
Mary-Sue Haliburton
John Robert Hankins
Jason Hart
Sepp Hasslberger
Donalyn Hennessey
Andrea Herrmann
Mike Hersee
Connie Howard
Suzanne Humphries
Laeeth Isharc
Petar Ivanovski
Stephen Jenuth
Jens Jerndal
Christine Johnson
Yonas Keleta
Anna Kenny
Billie Kidd
Fritz Kohle
Jafar Kolahi
Marianne Koller-Peroutka
Lyubov Kostova
Arunachalam Kumar
Alejandro Kurosawa
Tony Lance
Michael Lechermann
Bernhard Lendl
Michael Leuchters
Evan Lewis
Edward Lieb
Gloria Lloyd
Angelika Losek
Yao Lu
Saadia Maestracci
Dennis Mangan
Alberto W. Mares
Juan Mazar Barnett
Valerie McClain
John Sydney McNair
Terry Michael
Lloyd Miller
Partizia Monzani
Belen Moran
Mike Morris
Georg M枚脽mer
Johny Mountain
Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe
Marcos Mu帽oz
Sheri Nakken
Anne Nduta Wambui
Bettina Neunteufl
Dimitrije Nikoli膰
Devesh V. Oberoi
Gregory Obmode
Laura Ogar
Jo Ohara
Naion Olej Rybine
Bryan Owen
Kim Wilson Owen
Rakesh Parikh
Nicholas J. G. Pearce
Bernhard Pemmer
Chris Piper
Ian Prince
Terence Reid
Heiner Rindermann
Stefan Risch
Josh Robbins
Seth Roberts
Ajeandro Romero
Michael Thadd盲us Rothe
Sergio Ruiz
Juliane Sacher
Wolfgang Sackl
Markus Salletmaier
Jairaj Sanand
Clemens Sauerzopf
Thomas Schwarzgruber
David Scott
Laura Seegers
David Seppi
Kyle Shields
Jolanta Siller-Matula
Beldeu Singh
Sibusio Sithole
Florian Six
John R. Skoyles
Jildou Slofstra
Daphne Anne Sole
Werner F. Sommer
Mels Sonko
Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova
Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley
Wolfgang Steinhauser
Konstantin Steinhoff
Johannes H. Sterba
Martin Steppan
Reinhard Stindl
Joe Stokely
Karri Stokely
Gilles St-Pierre
James Stratford
Christina Streli
Carl Stryg
Mike Sullivan
Johann Summhammer
Amhayes Tadesse
David Tavares
Laura Thompson
Alison Tomlinson
Jack Tozer
Siro I. Trevisanato
Michaela Trimmel
Nicole Turner
Paul Vahur
Jennie van der Byl
Tine van der Maas
Leo Varela
Carlos A. Vega
Shiloh Vermaak
Alex Villasenor
Matt Vogel
Georg von Wintzigerode
Christoph Wagner
Manuel Weinberger
Peter Weinberger
Nick Wilson
Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe
Michael A. Woodley
Ian Young
Glenn Zuraw
Nicole Zwiren - 关键词：Peer review ; Academic freedom ; Editorial policy ; Periodicals as topic ; Innovation ; Scientific hypotheses ; David F. Horrobin
- 刊名：Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
- 出版年：2012
- 出版时间：October 2012
- 年：2012
- 卷：33
- 期：5
- 页码：359-376
- 全文大小：274KB
- 参考文献：1. Galilei, G. 1632. / Dialogo 鈥?sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. Florence: Gio:Batista Landini.
2. Sobel, D. 2000. / Galileo鈥檚 daughter: a historical memoir of science, faith, and love. New York: Penguin Books.
3. Charlton, B.G. 2004. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 鈥楥oI consultancy鈥? / Medical Hypotheses 63: 181鈥?86. oi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2004.06.001">CrossRef
4. Rothwell, P.M., and C.N. Martyn. 2000. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? / Brain 123: 1964鈥?969. oi.org/10.1093/brain/123.9.1964">CrossRef
5. Godlee, F., C.R. Gale, and C.N. Martyn. 1998. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. / Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 237鈥?40. oi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237">CrossRef
6. Callaham, M., and C. McCulloch. 2011. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. / Annals of Emergency Medicine 57: 141鈥?48. oi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.07.027">CrossRef
7. Einstein, A., and N. Rosen. 1937. On gravitational waves. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 223: 43. oi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(37)90583-0">CrossRef
8. Kennefick, D. 2005. Einstein versus the Physical Review. / Physics Today 58: 43. oi.org/10.1063/1.2117822">CrossRef
9. Deming, J.W., and J.A. Baross. 1983. Growth of 鈥榖lack smoker鈥?bacteria at temperatures of at least 250聽掳C. / Nature 303: 423鈥?26. oi.org/10.1038/303423a0">CrossRef
10. Trent, J.D., R.A. Chastain, and A.A. Yayanos. 1984. Possible artefactual basis for apparent bacterial growth at 250 degrees C. / Nature 307: 737鈥?40. oi.org/10.1038/307737a0">CrossRef
11. Begley, C.G., and L.M. Ellis. 2012. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. / Nature 483: 531鈥?33. oi.org/10.1038/483531a">CrossRef
12. Prinz, F., T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? / Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10: 712鈥?13. oi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1">CrossRef
13. Couzin-Frankel, J. 2011. Aging genes: the Sirtuin story unravels. / Science 334: 1194鈥?198. oi.org/10.1126/science.334.6060.1194">CrossRef
14. Wolfe-Simon, F., J. Switzer Blum, T.R. Kulp, et al. 2011. A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. / Science 332: 1163鈥?166. oi.org/10.1126/science.1197258">CrossRef
15. Alberts, B. 2011. Editor鈥檚 note. / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1208877">CrossRef
16. Benner, S.A. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201304">CrossRef
17. Borhani, D.W. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201255">CrossRef
18. Cotner, J.B., and E.K. Hall. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201943">CrossRef
19. Csabai, I., and E. Szathmary. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201399">CrossRef
20. Foster, P.L. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201551">CrossRef
21. Oehler, S. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201381">CrossRef
22. Redfield, R.J. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201482">CrossRef
23. Schoepp-Cothenet, B., W. Nitschke, L.M. Barge, A. Ponce, M.J. Russell, and A.I. Tsapin. 2011. Comment on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1201438">CrossRef
24. Wolfe-Simon, F., J.S. Blum, T.R. Kulp, et al. 2011. Response to comments on 鈥淎 bacterium that can grow using arsenic instead of phosphorus鈥? / Science 332: 1149. oi.org/10.1126/science.1202098">CrossRef
25. Shatz, D. 2004. / Peer review: a critical inquiry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
26. The Editors of The New Atlantis. 2006. Rethinking peer review: how the internet is changing science journals. / The New Atlantis 13: 106鈥?10.
27. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. / Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 1438鈥?441. oi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024">CrossRef
28. Charlton, B.G. 2007. Peer usage versus peer review. / British Medical Journal 335: 451. oi.org/10.1136/bmj.39304.581574.94">CrossRef
29. Thurner, S., and R. Hanel. 2011. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: towards selection of the average. / European Physical Journal B 84: 707鈥?11. oi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2011-20545-7">CrossRef
30. Fischer, K. 2005. Deformationen von Wissenschaft im universit盲ren System [Deformations of science in the university system]. In / Universit盲t und wissenschaftliches Wissen [University and scientific knowledge], ed. E. Eirmbter-Stolbrink, and C. K枚nig-Fuchs. Nordhausen: Bautz.
31. Groeben, N. 2006. Zur Kultur des 鈥?empirisch-szientifischen 鈥?Zeitschriftenaufsatzes [The culture of an empirical-scientific journal article.]. / Handlung-Kultur-Interpretation 15: 25鈥?1.
32. Kelly, B.D. 2009. Dear Editor鈥攁 note from any imaginary author in response to any referee. / Medical Hypotheses 72: 359. oi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2008.11.003">CrossRef
33. Darwin, C. 1859. / On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, 1st ed. London: John Murray.
34. Quammen, D. 2006. / The reluctant Mr. Darwin. New York: Atlas Books.
35. The Editors of Nature Cell Biology. 2006. Appreciating data: warts, wrinkles and all. / Nature Cell Biology 8: 203.
36. Charlton, B.G. 2010. The cancer of bureaucracy: how it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else. / Medical Hypotheses 74: 961鈥?65. oi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038">CrossRef
37. Johnson, V. 2008. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. / Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11076鈥?1080. oi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804538105">CrossRef
38. Gawrylewski, A. 2008. Tackling peer review bias. / The Scientist, July 28. om/?articles.view/articleNo/26628/" class="a-plus-plus">http://classic.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26628/. Accessed August 6, 2012.
39. Bains, W. 2009. Leadership and innovation: how consensus management blocks genuine innovation. / Bioscience Hypotheses 2: 277鈥?81. oi.org/10.1016/j.bihy.2009.08.002">CrossRef
40. Kaplan, D., N. Lacetera, and C. Kaplan. 2008. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review. / PLoS ONE 3: e2761. oi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002761">CrossRef
41. Horrobin, D.F. 1975. Ideas in biomedical science: reasons for the foundation of Medical Hypotheses. / Medical Hypotheses 1: 1鈥?. oi.org/10.1016/0306-9877(75)90032-8">CrossRef
42. Charlton, B.G. 2007. Medical Hypotheses 2006 impact factor rises to 1.3鈥擜 vindication of the 鈥渆ditorial review鈥?system for revolutionary science. / Medical Hypotheses 69: 967鈥?69. oi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.07.017">CrossRef
43. Fr枚hlich, G. 2002. Anonyme Kritik. Peer Review auf dem Pr眉fstand der empirisch-theoretischen Wissenschaftsforschung [Anonymous criticism Peer review researched]. In / Drehscheibe E-Mitteleuropa [Hub e-Middle-Europe], ed. E. Pipp. Wien: Phoibos.
44. Watts, G. 2010. Emasculating hypothetical oddities? / British Medical Journal 340: c726. oi.org/10.1136/bmj.c726">CrossRef
45. Cressey, D. 2010. Editor says no to peer review for controversial journal. / Nature News, March 18. om/news/2010/100318/full/news.2010.132.html" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100318/full/news.2010.132.html. Accessed August 12, 2012.
46. Enserink, M. 2010. Elsevier to editor: change controversial journal or resign. / Science 327: 1316. oi.org/10.1126/science.327.5971.1316">CrossRef
47. Duesberg, P.H., D. Mandrioli, A. McCormack, et al. 2011. AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic鈥攏ot even in Africa. / Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology 116: 73鈥?2.
48. Corbyn, Z. 2012. Paper denying HIV鈥揂IDS link secures publication: work by infamous AIDS contrarian passes peer review. / Nature News, January 5, 2012. om/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.nature.com/news/paper-denying-hiv-aids-link-secures-publication-1.9737. Accessed August 12, 2012.
49. Medical Hypotheses guide for authors. 2011. / Elsevier. om/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions" class="a-plus-plus">http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions. Accessed July 2011.
50. Mulligan A., P. Campbell, and T. Dorigo. 2010. What鈥檚 up with peer review: the future of peer review in policy, research, and public debates. Discussion following the oral presentation at the Euroscience Open Forum, Torino, Italy, July 2鈥?.
51. Manku, M.S. 2010. Mehar S Manku on assuming the editorship of Medical Hypotheses. / Medical Hypotheses 75: 275. oi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2010.07.020">CrossRef - 作者单位：Georg Steinhauser (1)
Wolfram Adlassnig
Jesaka Ahau Risch
Serena Anderlini
Petros Arguriou
Aaron Zolen Armendariz
William Bains
Clark Baker
Martin Barnes
Jonathan Barnett
Michael Baumgartner
Thomas Baumgartner
Charles A. Bendall
Yvonne S. Bender
Max Bichler
Teresa Biermann
Ronaldo Bini
Eduardo Blanco
John Bleau
Anthony Brink
Darin Brown
Christopher Burghuber
Roy Calne
Brian Carter
Cesar Casta帽o
Peter Celec
Maria Eugenia Celis
Nicky Clarke
David Cockrell
David Collins
Brian Coogan
Jennifer Craig
Cal Crilly
David Crowe
Antonei B. Csoka
Chaza Darwich
Topiciprin del Kebos
Michele DeRinaldi
Bongani Dlamini
Tomasz Drewa
Michael Dwyer
Fabienne Eder
Ra煤l Ehrichs de Palma
Dean Esmay
Catherine Evans R枚tt
Christopher Exley
Robin Falkov
Celia Ingrid Farber
William Fearn
Sophie Felsmann
Jarl Flensmark
Andrew K. Fletcher
Michaela Foster
Kostas N. Fountoulakis
Jim Fouratt
Jesus Garcia Blanca
Manuel Garrido Sotelo
Florian Gittler
Georg Gittler
Juan Gomez
Juan F. Gomez
Maria Grazia Gonzales Polar
Jossina Gonzalez
Christoph G枚sselsberger
Lynn Habermacher
Michael Hajek
Faith Hakala
Mary-Sue Haliburton
John Robert Hankins
Jason Hart
Sepp Hasslberger
Donalyn Hennessey
Andrea Herrmann
Mike Hersee
Connie Howard
Suzanne Humphries
Laeeth Isharc
Petar Ivanovski
Stephen Jenuth
Jens Jerndal
Christine Johnson
Yonas Keleta
Anna Kenny
Billie Kidd
Fritz Kohle
Jafar Kolahi
Marianne Koller-Peroutka
Lyubov Kostova
Arunachalam Kumar
Alejandro Kurosawa
Tony Lance
Michael Lechermann
Bernhard Lendl
Michael Leuchters
Evan Lewis
Edward Lieb
Gloria Lloyd
Angelika Losek
Yao Lu
Saadia Maestracci
Dennis Mangan
Alberto W. Mares
Juan Mazar Barnett
Valerie McClain
John Sydney McNair
Terry Michael
Lloyd Miller
Partizia Monzani
Belen Moran
Mike Morris
Georg M枚脽mer
Johny Mountain
Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe
Marcos Mu帽oz
Sheri Nakken
Anne Nduta Wambui
Bettina Neunteufl
Dimitrije Nikoli膰
Devesh V. Oberoi
Gregory Obmode
Laura Ogar
Jo Ohara
Naion Olej Rybine
Bryan Owen
Kim Wilson Owen
Rakesh Parikh
Nicholas J. G. Pearce
Bernhard Pemmer
Chris Piper
Ian Prince
Terence Reid
Heiner Rindermann
Stefan Risch
Josh Robbins
Seth Roberts
Ajeandro Romero
Michael Thadd盲us Rothe
Sergio Ruiz
Juliane Sacher
Wolfgang Sackl
Markus Salletmaier
Jairaj Sanand
Clemens Sauerzopf
Thomas Schwarzgruber
David Scott
Laura Seegers
David Seppi
Kyle Shields
Jolanta Siller-Matula
Beldeu Singh
Sibusio Sithole
Florian Six
John R. Skoyles
Jildou Slofstra
Daphne Anne Sole
Werner F. Sommer
Mels Sonko
Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova
Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley
Wolfgang Steinhauser
Konstantin Steinhoff
Johannes H. Sterba
Martin Steppan
Reinhard Stindl
Joe Stokely
Karri Stokely
Gilles St-Pierre
James Stratford
Christina Streli
Carl Stryg
Mike Sullivan
Johann Summhammer
Amhayes Tadesse
David Tavares
Laura Thompson
Alison Tomlinson
Jack Tozer
Siro I. Trevisanato
Michaela Trimmel
Nicole Turner
Paul Vahur
Jennie van der Byl
Tine van der Maas
Leo Varela
Carlos A. Vega
Shiloh Vermaak
Alex Villasenor
Matt Vogel
Georg von Wintzigerode
Christoph Wagner
Manuel Weinberger
Peter Weinberger
Nick Wilson
Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe
Michael A. Woodley
Ian Young
Glenn Zuraw
Nicole Zwiren
1. Atominstitut, Vienna University of Technology, Stadionallee 2, 1020, Vienna, Austria
文摘
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being 鈥渇iltered out鈥?or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.