Advertisement

The Tragicomedy of Peer Review—The Publication Game and the Lottery of Grants

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
Chapter
  • 330 Downloads

Abstract

Scientists, whereas they tend to be a smart bunch who perform very careful experiments and reach reasonable conclusions after interpreting the experimental results, are human after all, thus limited in their acumen and prone to make mistakes, just like any other person in any other trade. Hence, the standard procedure in scientific research has been, since time immemorial, that the experiments, results, and interpretations obtained by one are scrutinised by others, peers expert in the field. This is termed peer-review. But it is not only used to review papers sent for publication, it is done as well in grant applications, and in other things like ethics protocols.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Csiszar, Troubled from the start. Nature 532(306), 308 (2016)ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. de Schutter, Reviewing multi-disciplinary papers: a challenge in neuroscience? Neuroinformatics 6, 253–255 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.P. Peters, S.J. Ceci, Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behaviour. Brain Sci. 5(2), 187–195 (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.F. Horrobin, The grants game. Nature 339, 654 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1038/339654b0ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.M. Campanario, Rejecting and resisting nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics 81(2), 549–565 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.L. Perez Velazquez, Scientific research and the human condition. Nature 421, 13 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1038/421013a
  7. 7.
    J.T. Leek et al., Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS ONE 6(11), e26895 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026895ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.F. Horrobin, The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1438–1441 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.F. Horrobin, Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 51–52 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Brembs, K, Button, M. Munafo (2013) Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front. Human Neurosci. 7:2091Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ronin InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations