Sometimes they are not really peers in the sense of being of sufficiently high scientific quality. Sometimes the person selected by the editor is not the perfect match for the topic under review. Those who evaluate papers are not infallible and often work under time constraints that militate against perfection. What is needed is indeed more, not less, quality control and the involvement of the best scientists in order to ensure that there is genuine reviewing by peers. However, I think that all arguments made against peer review are ultimately wrong. Furthermore, some people, being aware of alternatives in the physical sciences, for instance, think that peer review may indeed no longer be essential to ensure that there is adequate quality control on the output of scientists. Peer review also has an elitist aspect that is easily attacked. Many view the powerful role that reviewers play in scientific publishing with suspicion, and feel that the anonymity of the process is contrary to the current demands for transparency. In fact, there are some aspects to the peer review process that have always drawn criticism.
#SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH ARTICLES FREE#
With the advent and growth of electronic media came a new philosophy, which asserts that everybody should be free to publish as they wish and that the ‘readers’ can decide for themselves if the article has scientific value. Without such an external seal of approval, they would consider any results presented as preliminary, potentially flawed and generally of the same self-serving status as a press release.īut the need for peer review has recently been questioned. In fact, most scientists will not consider a scientific pronouncement as valid unless it has been approved by this anonymous process, known as peer review. They read the article critically and then either suggest that it is accepted, rejected, or-most frequently-revised and improved before it is published. An essential aspect of the scientific process in the life sciences is the thorough examination of manuscripts by other scientists.
0 kommentar(er)
