The always entertaining Retraction Watch;
Yesterday, we reported on the discovery by BioMed Central that there were about 50 papers in their editorial system whose authors had recommended fake peer reviewers. Those “reviewers” had submitted reviews of a number of manuscripts, and five of the papers had been published. (BMC posted a blog examining the case this morning.)
For some Retraction Watch readers, the elements of the story may have seemed familiar. Fake reviews — often involving self-peer review — have been the basis for a growing number of retractions.
Elsevier (which publishes over 1700 scientific and trade journals) now insist that authors provide them with names and contact information for at least five reviewers. That should IMHO be the editors’ function. Its susceptibility to corruption is obvious.
Any grants which were paid, based on these self-peer reviewed papers, should be identified and the people who wrote and promoted them should be charged with criminal fraud.
Self-peer, is an absurd redundancy of a term. And if you don’t believe me, just ask me!
Peer review has nothing to do with science.
It is about politics. Peer review is an appeal to authority.
If a theory does not match reality it is wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Maybe it’s unintentional, but some of these posts make it sound like peer review per se is a dubious thing. One would have to reject science per se (like the Taliban does) in order to believe such a thing. What are provided are examples of peer review done very poorly. Peer review remains a crucial aspect of the scientific enterprise.
Only if the ‘peer review’ includes checks to confirm the validity of the data presented. Otherwise, the reviewer is asserting he has read the paper and thinks that it looks alright to him This is how Prof Mann’s magnum opus reached general circulation.
Cheers