| Autor: |
Kostas N. Fountoulakis, Michael Baumgartner, Beldeu Singh, Josh Robbins, Petros Arguriou, Michaela Foster, Gilles St-Pierre, Cal Crilly, Mike Hersee, Sibusio Sithole, David Cockrell, Michael Lechermann, David Crowe, Clark Baker, Johann Summhammer, Anne Nduta Wambui, Terry Michael, Michael A. Woodley, Christoph Gösselsberger, John R. Skoyles, Johannes H. Sterba, Peter Celec, Andrea Herrmann, Daphne Anne Sole, Juan F. Gomez, Carl Stryg, Ian Young, Markus Salletmaier, Rakesh M. Parikh, Matt Vogel, Marcos Muñoz, Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe, Jarl Flensmark, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Gloria Lloyd, Shiloh Vermaak, Mels Sonko, Jildou Slofstra, Sheri Nakken, Christine Johnson, Catherine Evans Rött, Martin Steppan, Manuel Weinberger, Amhayes Tadesse, Wolfgang Steinhauser, David Tavares, Partizia Monzani, Dean Esmay, Mike Sullivan, Chris Piper, Georg Mößmer, Donalyn Hennessey, Florian Gittler, Charles A. Bendall, Michael Thaddäus Rothe, John Robert Hankins, Belen Moran, Thomas Schwarzgruber, Siro I. Trevisanato, Angelika Losek, Jairaj Sanand, Billie Kidd, Karri Stokely, Christopher Burghuber, Darin Brown, Kim Wilson Owen, Bernhard Lendl, Yonas Keleta, Joe Stokely, Bettina Neunteufl, Antonei B. Csoka, Christoph Wagner, Andrew K. Fletcher, Dennis Mangan, Jennifer Craig, Michael Dwyer, Glenn Zuraw, Jens Jerndal, Bryan Owen, Brian Coogan, Nick Wilson, James P. Stratford, Georg Steinhauser, Stefan Risch, Nicholas J. G. Pearce, Jennie van der Byl, Brian Carter, Jolanta M. Siller-Matula, Devesh V. Oberoi, Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley, Connie Howard, Ronaldo Bini, David Seppi, Thomas Baumgartner, Heiner Rindermann, B. Pemmer, Bongani Dlamini, Lynn Habermacher, Jim Fouratt, Robin Falkov, William Fearn, Jafar Kolahi, Alejandro Kurosawa, John Bleau, Dimitrije Nikolić, Arunachalam Kumar, Georg von Wintzigerode, Valerie McClain, Laura Ogar, Seth Roberts, Marianne Koller-Peroutka, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Ajeandro Romero, Wolfgang Sackl, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Maria Grazia Gonzales Polar, Celia Ingrid Farber, Werner F. Sommer, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Jossina Gonzalez, Kyle Shields, Ian Prince, Jason Hart, Michaela Trimmel, Martin Barnes, Yao Lu, Yvonne S. Bender, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, Cesar Castaño, Teresa Biermann, Alison Tomlinson, Roy Calne, Carlos A. Vega, Paul Vahur, Johny Mountain, Anna Kenny, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Leuchters, Juan Mazar Barnett, John Sydney McNair, Jack Tozer, Topiciprin del Kebos, Suzanne Humphries, Naion Olej Rybine, Peter Weinberger, William Bains, Fabienne Eder, Stephen Jenuth, David Scott, Laura Thompson, David Collins, Nicole Zwiren, Mike Morris, Reinhard Stindl, Lloyd Miller, Evan Lewis, Sepp Hasslberger, Florian Six, Georg Gittler, Clemens Sauerzopf, Alex Villasenor, Chaza Darwich, Jo Ohara, Faith Hakala, Sophie Felsmann, Christina Streli, Petar Ivanovski, Terence Reid, Mary-Sue Haliburton, Wolfram Adlassnig, Laura Seegers, Max Bichler, Michele DeRinaldi, Anthony Brink, Edward Lieb, Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe, Juan Gomez, Christopher Exley, Michael Hajek, Nicky Clarke, Gregory Obmode, Alberto W. Mares, Tine van der Maas, Lyubov Kostova, Nicole Turner, Saadia Maestracci, Serena Anderlini, Tony Lance, Leo Varela, Laeeth Isharc, Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova, Juliane Sacher, Konstantin Steinhoff, Fritz Kohle, Sergio Ruiz, Maria Eugenia Celis, Eduardo Blanco, Jonathan Barnett |
| Přispěvatelé: |
Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Solvay Business School, Centre Leo Apostel |
| Rok vydání: |
2012 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Theoretical medicine and bioethics. 33(5) |
| ISSN: |
1573-0980 |
| Popis: |
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. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
