| |
Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science
- 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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(37)90583-0">CrossRef 8. Kennefick, D. 2005. Einstein versus the Physical Review. / Physics Today 58: 43. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1">CrossRef 13. Couzin-Frankel, J. 2011. Aging genes: the Sirtuin story unravels. / Science 334: 1194鈥?198. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1197258">CrossRef 15. Alberts, B. 2011. Editor鈥檚 note. / Science 332: 1149. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024">CrossRef 28. Charlton, B.G. 2007. Peer usage versus peer review. / British Medical Journal 335: 451. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804538105">CrossRef 38. Gawrylewski, A. 2008. Tackling peer review bias. / The Scientist, July 28. assic.the-scientist.com/?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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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?. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c726">CrossRef 45. Cressey, D. 2010. Editor says no to peer review for controversial journal. / Nature News, March 18. ass="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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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. ass="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. ass="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. ass="external" href="http://dx.doi.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.
| |
NGLC 2004-2010.National Geological Library of China All Rights Reserved.
Add:29 Xueyuan Rd,Haidian District,Beijing,PRC. Mail Add: 8324 mailbox 100083
For exchange or info please contact us via email.
| |