- Home
- Mission Statement
- Daily Vaccine News
- Daily News Archive
- Sandy's Column
- Sandy, Other
- Adverse Reactions
- Age of Autism - UPI
- Archived Sections
- Blogs
- Books
- Contact
- Donate
- Hilary and Ginger
- Important Notices
- Medical Journals
- Other Websites
- Political Action
- Privacy Statement
- RedFlags Archive
- State Laws
- Testimonials
- Unconventional Wisdom
- Vaccination Council
- Vaccine Research Library
- Vaccines, Pipeline
- Videos
- Video Archive
Little evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer reviewVaccination News Home Page subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7383/241/a?etoc
NewsLittle evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer reviewDespite its widespread use and costs, little hard evidence exists that peer review improves the quality of published biomedical research, concludes a systematic review from the international Cochrane Collaboration. Yet the system, which has been used for at least 200 years, has only recently
come under scrutiny, with its assumptions about fairness and
objectivity rarely tested, say the review authors. With few
exceptions, journal editors Published last week, the review is the third in a series from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group. The other reviews look at the grant application process and technical editing. Only the latter escapes a drubbing, with the reviewers concluding that technical editing does improve the readability, accuracy, and overall quality of published research. The Cochrane reviewers based their findings on 21 studies of the peer review process from an original trawl of only 135. These were drawn from a comprehensive search of biomedical print and online databases, and information received from bodies such as the World Association of Medical Editors. Almost half of the available research focused on the effects of concealing the identity of reviewers and/or authors, which, the Cochrane authors conclude, has little impact on quality. Few studies assessed the impact of peer review on the importance, usefulness, relevance, or quality of research. Only one small study tested the validity of the peer review procedure itself. On the basis of the current evidence, "the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts," state the authors, who call for large, government funded research programmes to test the effectiveness of the system and investigate possible alternatives. "As the information revolution gathers pace, an empirically proven method of quality assurance is of paramount importance," they contend. Professor Tom Jefferson, who led the Cochrane review, suggested that further research might prove that peer review, or an evolved form of it, worked. At the very least, it needed to be more open and accountable. But he said that there had never even been any consensus on its aims and that it would be more appropriate to refer to it as "competitive review." Not only did peer review pander to egos and give researchers licence to knife each other in the back with impunity, he said, but it was also "completely useless at detecting research fraud" and let editors off the hook for publishing poor quality studies. In the latest report from the Committee on Publication Ethics, Professor
Peter Lachmann, until recently president of the UK Academy of Medical
Sciences, comments: "Peer review is to science what democracy is to
politics. It's not the most efficient mechanism, but it's the least
corruptible."
Footnotes The report can be accessed from the National electronic Library for Health (www.nelh.nhs.uk)
© 2003 BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd
Rapid responses:Read all Rapid responses
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
DISCLAIMER: All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in consultation with your health care provider.
Copyright 2012 by Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation. All Rights Reserved. This content may not be copied unless permission in writing from Sandy Gottstein has been obtained. 
|
 "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth." -- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901 "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820 "What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?" -- Sandy Gottstein "Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?" -- Sandy Gottstein |
and
clinicians