Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T14:29:35.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Separating the wheat from the chaff: peer review on trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2010

Nicholas Russell
Nicholas Russell
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Get access

Summary

New times call for new men. The economy of computer and communication technologies has spawned new millionaires. Like successful businessmen of previous generations, they have turned to philanthropy and are giving their money away to good causes. In the past, if such philanthropists invested in science or technology, they had projects evaluated by the traditional process of peer review. Proposals were considered by panels of scientists specialized in the fields concerned.

But the new silicon millionaires do not favour this model. They want things to be riskier and more like their own business practice. They select areas of science that interest them personally (often biomedicine or neurophysiology) and target funds there. They often hire a leading expert in the chosen field as a technical advisor to network with other field leaders and identify people with interesting ideas whom they encourage to apply for funds. They are trying to spot winners, with the inevitable fall-out of failed projects hopefully counterbalanced by enough successes. The system has an element of peer review (opinions of field leaders are sought) and some early promise in track record is necessary, but much more emphasis is placed on searching out promising innovators to make applications that look like business plans. The millionaires make quick and less bureaucratic decisions than conventional funding agencies using traditional peer review, although the risks of failure are higher.

These new philanthropists are not the only ones questioning peer review as a gold standard in quality control in choosing projects to fund. The dissatisfaction with peer review runs deeper and some people are calling into question the whole system of quality control in science based on review and its modifications. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Communicating Science
Professional, Popular, Literary
 , pp. 53 - 66
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 14 February, 415, 726–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adam, D. and Knight, J. (2002). Publish and be damned … . Nature, 24 October, 419, 772–6.CrossRef
Ball, P. (2006). Prestige is factored into journal ratings. Nature, 16 February, 439, 770–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, A. (2003). Revealed: how drug firms ‘hoodwink’ medical journals. The Observer, 7 December, 15.Google Scholar
Boseley, S. (1998). Medical studies ‘rubbish’. The Guardian, 24 June, 5.Google Scholar
Braben, D. (1996). The repressive regime of peer-review bureaucracy. Physics Review, November, 13–14.Google Scholar
Braben, D. (1994). To be a Scientist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, G. (2008). Data show extent of sexism in physics. Nature, 24 April, 452, 918.Google ScholarPubMed
Campanario, J. M. (1995). Commentary. On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16, 304–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. (1992). Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 October, 15.
Cressey, D. (2008). Merck accused of disguising its role in research. Nature, 17 April, 452, 791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure. Nature, 13 September, 413, 102–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, S. C. (2004). An unbiased teacher? Scientists' views on the ethics and value of pharmaceutical industry driven medical education. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, Imperial College London.
Elliot Major, L. (1998). Safety standard under fire. The Guardian, Higher Education Section, 7 July, xxiii.Google Scholar
Fugh-Berman, A. (2005). Not in my name. The Guardian, 21 April, Life Section, 9.Google Scholar
Giles, J. (2006). Stacking the deck. Nature, 16 March, 440, 270–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gura, T. (2001). Biomedical philanthropy, silicon valley style. Nature, 8 March, 410, 140–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, D. N. and Rushton, J. P. (eds.) (1987). Scientific Excellence, Origins and Assessment. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1985). Peer review in the regulatory process. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 20 March, 422, 259–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lock, S. (1991). A Difficult Balance, Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London: BMJ Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II. Cumulative advantage and the and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79, 606–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that's devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 October (accessed as e-site The Chronicle: 10/14/2005).Google Scholar
Pearson, H. (2006). Credit where credit's due. Nature, 30 March, 440, 591–2.Google Scholar
Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 5, 187–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psaty, B. M. and Kronmal, R. A. (2008). Reporting mortality findings in trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer's Disease and cognitive impairment: a case study based on documentation from Rofecoxib litigation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299 (15), 1813–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revill, J. (2005). How the drugs giant and a lone academic went to war. The Observer, 4 December, 10–11.Google Scholar
Ross, J. S.Hill, K. P.Egilman, D. S. and Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghost writing in publications relating to Rofecoxib. A case study of industry documents from Rofecoxib litigation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299 (15), 1800–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, R. (1984). Alternatives to review by peers: a contribution to the theory of scientific choice. Minerva, XXII, 316–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sample, I. (2003). The giants of science. The Guardian, 25 September, Life Section, 4–6.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1997). Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review. British Medical Journal, 315, 759–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The Nature of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strossel, T. P. (1985). Refinement in biomedical communication. A case study. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. and Giles, J. (2005). Cash interests taint drug advice. Nature, 20 October, 437, 1070–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Travis, G. D. J., and Collins, H. M. (1991). New light on old boys; cognitive and institutional particularisation in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16, 322–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towers, S. (2008). A case study of gender bias at the postdoctoral level in physics and its resulting impact on the academic career achievement of females. arXiv: 0804.2026v3 [physics.soc-ph], 19 April.Google Scholar
Watts, G. (2000). Are peers prejudiced?Times Higher Education Supplement. 12 May.Google Scholar
Weinberg, A. (1984). Values in science; unity as a criterion of scientific choice. Minerva, XXII, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenneras, C. and Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 22 May, 387, 341–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuckerman, H. (1977), Scientific Elite. Nobel Laureates in the United States. London: CollierGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×