« Warnock's dilemma | Main | Why cranks don't like peer review »

Bookmark in Connotea

Necessary but not sufficient?

Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition

This is a link to an interesting post on the Real Climate blog about how peer-review aims to weed out poor science, whether it is successful at that goal. The examples given are from the field of climate research, and provide a telling account of how accuracy can be lost, advertently or inadvertently, in the glare of publicity. The post concludes: "even when it initially breaks down, the process of peer-review does usually work in the end. But sometimes it can take a while. Observers would thus be well advised to be extremely skeptical of any claims in the media or elsewhere of some new "bombshell" or "revolution" that has not yet been fully vetted by the scientific community."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 17, 2007
Categories: Quality and value | | Comments (0)

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited. Remember this blog is for feedback and discussion of matters concerning scientific authorship or peer-review - not for drawing attention to your research.

If you want to know if a NPG journal would be interested in your research, you will need to contact the journal's editorial office, which can be done via the authors & referees website.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to avoid spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can send your comment by e-mail to 'referees at nature.com'.

please enter code

Search