"The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices. With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as ?serious methodological flaws.? A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated." Oh dear oh dear.

It's the worst system... apart from all the others. And since I'm wheeling out Churchill quotes: The maxim 'Nothing avails but perfection' may be spelt shorter: 'Paralysis.' Theo

Peer reviewed article shows peer reviewing is bunk..?

May 29, 2013 25 Replies

Rate this thread:

harry 13 years ago

Psychology is 99% bullshit anyway. Not really a science. Down there with media studies.

Vote

Michael Kilpatrick 13 years ago

What happened in the end? Did he never get the PhD?

Michael

Vote

Mark 13 years ago

formatting link

OMG. Then you'd end up with something like the Daily Wail "Have you say".

I think that anononmysing the paper would be a good step.

But who gets to decide?

Vote

polygonum 13 years ago

formatting link

Certainly agree that it would not be easy to come up with a sensible process.

And we don't need another place for the Daily Mailers to splurge.

But something has to change, at least in the health and medical arena. (I suspect that abstruse physics is likely better served by peer review than is health.)

Vote

Huge 13 years ago

Nope.

Vote

The Natural Philosopher 13 years ago

And that shows you why if you publish ANYTHING anywhere NEAR 'climate change' it had better be 'on message'

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required