Peer review: The Holy Office of modern science

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHenneberg, M.
dc.date.issued1997
dc.description.abstractA brief historical overview of the origins of peer review reveals that it is neither the best means of evaluating contributions to science nor the one most commonly used during the period in which the modern scientific method developed. Throughout history, most scientists published their views without formal review and peers published their criticisms openly. It is argued here that peer review as now undertaken by most scientific journals stifles scientific communication, slows the advancement of knowledge and encourages dishonest behavior among referees. Alternatives to peer review that have already been used by some journals and funding bodies are described. Since these alternatives have proved themselves in practice, the now commonly practised form of peer review can be abandoned or modified. Electronic communication can facilitate this process.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityMaciej Henneberg
dc.identifier.citationNatural Science, 1997; 1:2-
dc.identifier.issn1206-940X
dc.identifier.orcidHenneberg, M. [0000-0003-1941-2286]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/5432
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherHeron Publishing
dc.rightsCopyright status unknown
dc.source.urihttp://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html
dc.subjectElectronic communication; objectivity; peer review; refereed journals; research grants; science funding; science publishing; subjectivity
dc.titlePeer review: The Holy Office of modern science
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Anatomical Sciences publications