Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + +
obvious controls as peer review and detailed accountability begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system
A controversial form of peer review is when physicians on the staff of a hospital pass judgment on a fellow physician, and recommend that he be excluded from the medical staff. This has potential for abuse to eliminate competitors, which is known as [[sham peer review]].
A controversial form of peer review is when physicians on the staff of a hospital pass judgment on a fellow physician, and recommend that he be excluded from the medical staff. This has potential for abuse to eliminate competitors, which is known as [[sham peer review]].
==Limitations of peer review==
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:
:The combination of increased scale and diminished emphasis on unique talent is, from a certain point of view, a devastating combination which greatly increases the potential for the political direction of science, and the creation of dependent constituencies. With these new constituencies, such obvious controls as peer review and detailed accountability begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system. Miller (2007) specifically addresses how the system especially favors dogmatism and conformity.<ref> [http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/ Climate Science: Is It Designed To Answer Questions?]</ref>
==Peer review and [[due diligence]]==
==Peer review and [[due diligence]]==