Peer review is the process of engaging substantive experts to read and comment
on new research in the fields in which they study in order to validate and
certify that research.
Peer review (known as refereeing in some areas) is an essential dividing line
for judging what is scientific and what is speculation. The process screens
article submissions and requires that authors meet the standards of their
discipline and achieve scientific objectivity. This means that science is more
than just another opinion. More about peer
review
What People Say...
“Peer review is the most potent
way of separating false from true claims. It enables experts who have an
interest in the relevant area, but not a vested interest in the narrow sense,
to look critically at the methods and findings of their fellow scientists. The
approach is transparent and has to satisfy objective criteria of fairness.
Without peer review, it is not possible for the public to know what is mere
opinion and what is underpinned by good research; consequently charlatans and
dubious findings are given as much of a hearing as the well-founded views of
reputable scientists.” Professor Raymond Tallis,
University of Manchester; author of Hippocratic Oath: Medicine and its
Discontents
“Peer review is what makes science
scientific. Although no human system can ever be perfect, peer review is the
best system we have for ensuring the reliability of scientific findings. The
public should always ask: “Is it – or isn’t it?”” Dr
Ted Nield, The Geological Society of London
Many of the research claims we read in newspapers and magazines, find on the
Internet, or hear on television and the radio are not published in a
peer-reviewed journal. Many reported findings, such as claims about “wonder
cures” and “new dangers” never amount to anything. Find
out more
“Peer review is to science what democracy is to politics. It’s not the most
efficient mechanism, but it’s the least corruptible.” Peter
Lachmann, 2002
