The peer review process is the basic method for checking medical research. Researchers who didn't work on a particular paper judge whether or not it meets scientific standards. But some specialists have begun to wonder whether or not peer review fails to detect serious flaws in research.
It's almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process; peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. Their reviews are kept confidential, making it difficult to determine their standards.
One-Third of Studies Have Been Questioned
Now, a study has found that almost one-third of peer-reviewed research articles have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, and some scientists are calling for changes in the system. They suggested that reviewers drop their anonymity and allow comments to be published, and some have additionally proposed that peer reviewers be paid to ensure consistent quality.
Dr. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, said of peer review, ''The more we look into it, the harder it is to prove whether it does good or bad." Rennie has called for a study of this issue. He has a personal policy of disclosing his name for his journal article reviews.
Anonymity: Benefit or Hindrance?
Other scientists disagreed with the criticisms, arguing that anonymity allows reviewers to give negative reviews without fearing damage to their future careers.
The peer review system has had many successes; it has saved scientists from publishing seriously flawed work or incorrect medical advice. But it lacks consistent standards; the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal. There is no organization that sets standards or guidelines for peer review.
Dubious Incidents
There have been many incidents that cast doubt on the validity of the current peer review process. In one study, researchers submitted a plagiarized paper to 110 journals, but only two noticed the problem. In another, researchers looked at 18 peer-reviewed papers written by researchers who had later admitted to scientific fraud. Sixteen of the papers were riddled with errors.
There are many problems with the American medical research system as it's currently designed, and I'm glad people are finally starting to sit up and take notice.
The problems with the journal publishing system are just the tip of the iceberg. The peer review process, dependent as it is on the prejudices of the scientists performing the reviews, has a distinct tendency to let flawed papers through if they are on "acceptable" topics, while casting a much more disapproving eye on "alternative" medicine, no matter how solid its foundation in medical fact.
Other more troubling problems include the blatant conflict of interest that controls what studies are funded, what topics are chosen for research, and even what results will be claimed. The pharmaceutical companies have the money and call the shots, and their research always seems to come up saying "our drugs are good," "our drugs are safe," and "buy our drugs."
A 2005 survey showed that scientists cannot and do not remain objective in the face of corporate pressures. Scientists admitted to:
Of more than 3,000 scientists surveyed, 20.6 percent admitted to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from the funding source. And this could be a gross underestimate of actual violations, since misbehaving scientists may have been less likely than others to respond to the survey for fear of discovery.
Good science must be based in fact rather than prejudice, and be free of monetary influence from those who want to see results go a certain way. The current processes for funding, performing and peer reviewing medical studies could all use a good overhaul.
Related Articles:
Peer Review System for Journals Can Get You Into TroubleNew England Journal Changes Rules and Says Its OK to Payoff Its ReviewersIs the Evidence Really Evidence?
Peer Review System for Journals Can Get You Into Trouble
New England Journal Changes Rules and Says Its OK to Payoff Its Reviewers
Is the Evidence Really Evidence?