Difference between revisions of "Peer review"
(from talk) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Peer review''' means prepublication review of a professional's work by others in the same profession. A "peer-reviewed" medical journal requires other physicians to review and approve an article before it can be published. A "peer-reviewed" scientific journal requires other scientists to review and approve an article before publication. | '''Peer review''' means prepublication review of a professional's work by others in the same profession. A "peer-reviewed" medical journal requires other physicians to review and approve an article before it can be published. A "peer-reviewed" scientific journal requires other scientists to review and approve an article before publication. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out (minus identifying information as to the authorship of the piece) to three to five readers who have some expertise regarding the article’s subject. | ||
Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be read by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. | Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be read by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. | ||
Revision as of 19:26, October 14, 2007
Peer review means prepublication review of a professional's work by others in the same profession. A "peer-reviewed" medical journal requires other physicians to review and approve an article before it can be published. A "peer-reviewed" scientific journal requires other scientists to review and approve an article before publication.
Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out (minus identifying information as to the authorship of the piece) to three to five readers who have some expertise regarding the article’s subject.
Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be read by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it.
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.
Peer review and due diligence
Steve McIntyre wrote:
- IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been 'peer reviewed' by a journal. However, as a form of due diligence, journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like Nature or Science, is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author.
- It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. [1]
External links
- Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science - Steve McIntyre
