| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibil
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dr. Convection |
 Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12652170&dopt=Abstract
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(1):75-96.
Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and
accountability in the peer review process.
Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS.
Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care, Jefferson Medical
College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107-5083, USA. Mohammadreza.Hojat@mail.tju.edu
High publication demands and the low acceptance rate of peer review journals
place the journal editors and their reviewers in a powerful position.
Journal reviewers have a vital role not only in influencing the journal
editor's publication decisions, but also in the very nature and direction of
scientific research. Because of their influence in peer review outcomes,
journal reviewers are aptly described as the "gatekeepers of science." In
this article we describe several pitfalls that can impede reviewers'
impartial judgement. These include such issues as confirmatory bias, the
negative results bias (the file drawer problem), the Matthew effect, the
Doctor Fox effect, and gender, race, theoretical orientation, and "political
correctness." We argue that procedures currently used by many professional
journals, such as blind or masked review, may not completely alleviate the
effects of these pitfalls. Instead, we suggest that increasing reviewers'
awareness of the pitfalls, accountability, and vigilance can improve
fairness in the peer review process. The ultimate responsibilities belong to
the journal editors who are confronted with the difficult task of satisfying
journal readers, contributors, reviewers, and owners. We recommend that the
journal editors conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of their
journals' peer review process and outcomes, with participation of reviewers,
contributors, readers and owners.
PMID: 12652170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BretCahill |
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?
Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.
The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.
Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.
As Milton Friedman might say, if corporate interests pay economists to dodge
issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge issues.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:46 am
|
|