 |
| 
| |
| | |
|
|
|
What is the future of peer review? What does it do for science and what does the scientific community want it to do? Should it detect fraud and misconduct? Does it illuminate good ideas or shut them down? Does it help journalists report the status and quality of research? Why do some researchers do their bit and others make excuses? And why are all these questions important not just to journal editors, but to the public? A new study, to be released at the British Science Festival 2009, is about to tell us.
Sometimes we find it easy to dismiss pseudoscience. We’ve all grimaced about marketing, websites and headlines proclaiming miracle cures, deadly toxins, magnetic detox remedies. We’ve shrugged them off as bogus, and turned to the real news. But at other times, it’s not so simple. We wonder how one medical claim weighs up against another and whether reports that scientists have discovered a new therapy or a new hazard are reliable. Sense About Science has made it their business – and the business of the research community – to help the public question such reports and claims. Founded in 2002, this charitable trust promotes an understanding of good science through collaborative publications, panels and public activism campaigns against the misrepresentation of everything from homeopathy to radiation, from cell phones to bird flu. A core element in the popular tool kits they have developed is an understanding of peer review.
Sense About Science and their network of early career researchers (VoYS) have succeeded in making peer review – once the dusty business of scholars – a popular topic of discussion across schools, universities, community groups, government and science festivals by relentlessly asking ‘How do you make sense of science stories?’. “One of our goals is to generate a wider public discussion about good science and help people make sense of isolated claims,” Tracey Brown said: “Peer review seemed central from the outset. The differences between scientific reports and, for example, marketing material, didn’t seem to be explained. We thought it was worth trying, but nothing prepared us for the enthusiastic interest from libraries, newspapers, scientific publishers, policy makers, patient groups, universities, and especially early career researchers — our next generation of reviewers.”
|
| |
| | |
|
|
|
While SAS has been working on expanding the understanding of peer review among the general public and journalists, they have recently turned their attention to peer review itself, seeking to explore how scientists (who range from highly supportive to apathetic and distrustful) understand peer review and how publishers safeguard the process. For a scientific publisher such as Elsevier, where peer review is facilitated on a daily basis - totaling one million reviews for 500,000 articles a year – it is imperative to ensure quality and a deep understanding of the issues. With the resources of Elsevier and other publishers, Sense About Science embarked on an ambitious, worldwide survey of 100,000 scientists’ preoccupations and preconceptions as both authors and reviewers of scientific papers.
The results of the 2009 peer review survey will be unveiled at the British Science Festival in September when Tracey Brown, SAS’s Managing Director, will lead debate and discussion with Dr James Randerson of The Guardian, and Dr. John McConnell, Editor, The Lancet Infectious Diseases—and of course scientists, policymakers, journalists and the public.
To cite this article, please use: Ylann Schemm, “Sense about Science survey asks scientists about peer review”, Elsevier Editors’ Update, Issue 27, August 2009
Reprinted with permission from article for the British Science Association Festival.
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
|
| |
