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.
Lack of progress in science is never so much due to any scarcity of factual information as it is to the fixed mindsets of scientists themselves
F. R. Schram, 1992
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
A. Csiszar, Troubled from the start. Nature 532(306), 308 (2016)
E. de Schutter, Reviewing multi-disciplinary papers: a challenge in neuroscience? Neuroinformatics 6, 253–255 (2008)
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/S0140525X00011183
D.F. Horrobin, The grants game. Nature 339, 654 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1038/339654b0
J.M. Campanario, Rejecting and resisting nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics 81(2), 549–565 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2141-5
J.L. Perez Velazquez, Scientific research and the human condition. Nature 421, 13 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/421013a
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.0026895
D.F. Horrobin, The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1438–1441 (1990)
D.F. Horrobin, Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 51–52 (2001)
B. Brembs, K, Button, M. Munafo (2013) Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front. Human Neurosci. 7:2091
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Perez Velazquez, J.L. (2019). The Tragicomedy of Peer Review—The Publication Game and the Lottery of Grants. In: The Rise of the Scientist-Bureaucrat. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12326-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12326-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12325-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12326-0
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)