March 3, 2016
Peer review is ubiquitous in science, used both by reputable journals and by research funders to help allocate resources (journal space and research dollars) in the best way possible. As everyone knows, the process is not perfect--no scheme run by mere humans could be. Peer reviewers of research papers are not impressively good at detecting errors, for example, as a high-profile study by staff members of the British Medical Journal demonstrated a few years ago (1). But researchers have complained for years that peer review leads to overly conservative outcomes.
back to BioScience Editorials