| Literature DB >> 23054375 |
Georg Steinhauser, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A Bendall, Yvonne S Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony Brink, Darin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castaño, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin Del Kebos, Michele Derinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Rött, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Sophie Felsmann, Jarl Flensmark, Andrew K Fletcher, Michaela Foster, Kostas N Fountoulakis, Jim Fouratt, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Florian Gittler, Georg Gittler, Juan Gomez, Juan F Gomez, Maria Grazia Gonzales Polar, Jossina Gonzalez, Christoph Gösselsberger, Lynn Habermacher, Michael Hajek, Faith Hakala, Mary-Sue Haliburton, John Robert Hankins, Jason Hart, Sepp Hasslberger, Donalyn Hennessey, Andrea Herrmann, Mike Hersee, Connie Howard, Suzanne Humphries, Laeeth Isharc, Petar Ivanovski, Stephen Jenuth, Jens Jerndal, Christine Johnson, Yonas Keleta, Anna Kenny, Billie Kidd, Fritz Kohle, Jafar Kolahi, Marianne Koller-Peroutka, Lyubov Kostova, Arunachalam Kumar, Alejandro Kurosawa, Tony Lance, Michael Lechermann, Bernhard Lendl, Michael Leuchters, Evan Lewis, Edward Lieb, Gloria Lloyd, Angelika Losek, Yao Lu, Saadia Maestracci, Dennis Mangan, Alberto W Mares, Juan Mazar Barnett, Valerie McClain, John Sydney McNair, Terry Michael, Lloyd Miller, Partizia Monzani, Belen Moran, Mike Morris, Georg Mößmer, Johny Mountain, Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe, Marcos Muñoz, Sheri Nakken, Anne Nduta Wambui, Bettina Neunteufl, Dimitrije Nikolić, Devesh V Oberoi, Gregory Obmode, Laura Ogar, Jo Ohara, Naion Olej Rybine, Bryan Owen, Kim Wilson Owen, Rakesh Parikh, Nicholas J G Pearce, Bernhard Pemmer, Chris Piper, Ian Prince, Terence Reid, Heiner Rindermann, Stefan Risch, Josh Robbins, Seth Roberts, Ajeandro Romero, Michael Thaddäus Rothe, Sergio Ruiz, Juliane Sacher, Wolfgang Sackl, Markus Salletmaier, Jairaj Sanand, Clemens Sauerzopf, Thomas Schwarzgruber, David Scott, Laura Seegers, David Seppi, Kyle Shields, Jolanta Siller-Matula, Beldeu Singh, Sibusio Sithole, Florian Six, John R Skoyles, Jildou Slofstra, Daphne Anne Sole, Werner F Sommer, Mels Sonko, Chrislie J Starr-Casanova, Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley, Wolfgang Steinhauser, Konstantin Steinhoff, Johannes H Sterba, Martin Steppan, Reinhard Stindl, Joe Stokely, Karri Stokely, Gilles St-Pierre, James Stratford, Christina Streli, Carl Stryg, Mike Sullivan, Johann Summhammer, Amhayes Tadesse, David Tavares, Laura Thompson, Alison Tomlinson, Jack Tozer, Siro I Trevisanato, Michaela Trimmel, Nicole Turner, Paul Vahur, Jennie van der Byl, Tine van der Maas, Leo Varela, Carlos A Vega, Shiloh Vermaak, Alex Villasenor, Matt Vogel, Georg von Wintzigerode, Christoph Wagner, Manuel Weinberger, Peter Weinberger, Nick Wilson, Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe, Michael A Woodley, Ian Young, Glenn Zuraw, Nicole Zwiren.
Abstract
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.Mesh：
Year: 2012 PMID： 23054375 DOI： 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theor Med Bioeth ISSN： 1386-7415