The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation

Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

“…High-status journals distinguish themselves by publishing cutting-edge science of theoretical importance (2,30), so the emphasis on novelty is unsurprising. Further, because highly cited articles are expected to be novel and paradigm-shifting (5,31), it is surprising that almost half of the top 15 cases were criticized for their lack of novelty. However, perceived novelty may only be relative.…”

“…Lee et al (22) listed numerous potential sources of bias in peer review, including social characteristics of authors, as well as the intellectual content of their scientific work. The tendency of gatekeepers to prefer work closer to their own and the scientific status quo is a source of intellectual conservativism in science (5). Previous analysis of this dataset found that submitted manuscripts were more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, larger sample sizes, a randomized, controlled design, disclosed funding sources, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal (36).…”

“…Publication in leading journals is linked to professional rewards in science, which influences the choices scientists make with their work (1). Although peer review is widely cited as central to academic evaluation (2,3), numerous scholars have expressed concern about the effectiveness of peer review, particularly regarding the tendency to protect the scientific status quo and suppress innovative findings (4,5). Others have focused on errors of omission in peer review, offering anecdotes of seminal scientific innovations that faced emphatic rejections from high-status gatekeepers and journals before eventually achieving publication and positive regard (6)(7)(8).…”

How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication

“…Peer review elicits strong feelings and diverse attitudes (Baumeister 1990;Bedeian 1996a, b;Holbrook 1986). Gossip about inconsistent reviews and biased reviewers pervades academe, and studies have documented various biases of reviewers (Armstrong 1997;Bedeian 2003;Campanario 1996Campanario , 1998bEllison 2002;Hargens 1990;Horrobin 1990;Mahoney et al 1978;Nylenna et al 1994). One interesting finding is that reviewers criticize the methodology of studies that cast doubt on theories that the reviewers like and they applaud the methodology of studies that support theories that they like (Mahoney 1977(Mahoney , 1979.…”

The burden of proof and the origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome

“…Rather than operating with an idealized picture of scienti¢c practice, the complexities and biases can be acknowledged and used to help achieve the goals of science, which, arguably, should include both better knowledge and bene¢t to humans (Horrobin 1990;Maxwell 1984).…”