Medical Hypotheses
Volume 52, Issue 1 , Pages 31-36, January 1999

Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review

Department of Pathology, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand

Received 6 June 1997; accepted 8 September 1997.

Abstract 

The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or ‘controversial’ or nonconformist views of sceptics and dissident minorities. Mediocrity is thereby perpetuated, with highly innovative science stifled by the conflict of interest and reviewer shortcomings underlying the review system. The effective court of appeal should be the editor. Self-correction of review procedures is recommended by:

(I) improving the editorial quality control of peer reviews; (ii) abolition of the cloak of secrecy and anonymity of reviewers; and (iii) active encouragement of critical debate of unorthodox submissions.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0306-9877(97)90628-9

doi:10.1054/mehy.1997.0628

Medical Hypotheses
Volume 52, Issue 1 , Pages 31-36, January 1999

Article Tools