Article: Nature, "Peer reviewers need more nurturing"

Andy

Retired committee member
When peer review is broken, so is science. That is why this week, three national scientific academies — the French Academy of Sciences, the German Leopoldina and the UK Royal Society — are issuing a joint statement on how to make sure research evaluation is done well. This is the first time the societies have spoken out on the issue, and they do so at the behest of Carlos Moedas, the European Union commissioner for research, science and innovation. As foreign secretary of the Royal Society, I helped to put this statement together. I hope it will influence all involved in assessing scientists for promotion, tenure and awards.

Our key recommendation is that peer review should remain the cornerstone of assessment. It must be carried out by people who are competent peers — and who are recognized as such. These reviewers need the time and training to examine scientific contributions thoughtfully, without depending on bibliometric summaries. To make that happen, we must treat assessment expertise as a valuable resource.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08289-z
 
Excellent. A few gems:
And the experts called in to perform reviews cannot be a closed club, whose members could be inclined to choose people like themselves.
Societies and institutions should take measures to build reviewing expertise. Our current system presumes that scientists will simply pick up the necessary skills.
Following these recommendations would prepare us to tackle what in my view is the most worrying aspect of research evaluation: the over-reliance on metrics. This distorts the research programmes of early-career scientists. I have seen younger colleagues, in what should be a highly creative stage of their careers, slant their research towards topics they believe will accrue large numbers of citations and appear in journals with high impact factors. Evidence suggests important questions are neglected as a result.
Similarly, impact factors tell us about a journal; they cannot be used as a measure of the quality of an individual article in that journal.
 
"We need to have more confidence in the people chosen to lead big projects. "

Hmm... then you need to do more to hold to account those who place people like White in charge of major projects!

"Excellence is the primary qualification so gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age and so on must be no barrier to inclusion on a panel of assessors."

Excellence is the primary qualification? Identified how? If we could reliably identify excellence everything would be a lot easier.

I think that a big problem is that many people have too much respect for the peer-review process. There are things that can be done to improve it, but it's always going to be pretty shit, and it's important that people not assume they can trust claims made in the peer-reviewed literature.

Another thing that is really worrying to me is that some researchers seem to think that having their papers pass peer-review somehow absolves them of responsibility to defend the unreasonable claims and inaccuracies in their papers, as if peer-review has somehow shown that their work is of an acceptable standard, regardless of the problems others may later identify.
 
Peer review is like the quote from Churchill on democracy: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Peer review is a check and balance, one of many, not a panacea.

I agree, we need to value peer reviewers, we need to find ways to make it worth while to do them, to be what we would like a peer reviewer to be. But we also need to know that peer review is only one part of a process of review and critique, like the preliminary hearing in a trial: just the bit that checks if there's anything to be read. The spam filter.
 
Peer review is a check and balance, one of many, not a panacea.
You got there before me :). Peer reviewing is not unique to science, but seems to have taken on a life of its own somehow within some areas of the science community. Peer reviewing is not a magic wand, but an important quality assurance layer; if done properly it should help filter out poor science and motivate scientists to do better science. Unfortunately within some scientific circles their pet peer reviewers seem to be part of the poor science club.
 
i think partly what is being fought over is credibility, authority, and status.

there is an attitude out there that peer review confers truth. as a performative act, much like "i pronounce you man and wife" means you are married, peer-reviewed means it's true. this is magical thinking. as long as it exists, this audience will be fought over.

but even if this audience goes away, there is rational ignorance. nobody can read every paper. attention will be fought over.

at the same time there is palpable insecurity that science is losing its authority -- reinforced by anti-science attitudes out there. mankind needs science. there is also a closing of ranks. and a desire to keep its 1950s style "we know best" authority. and some people just plain adore authority.

it should be obvious that a basic point of science-as-it-should-be is that it is inductive, transparent, and humble. it is indifferent to what authority wants. it does not reject perceived outsiders. science is meant to be science. not a white coat or a degree. it is not served by closing ranks. it is not served by fallacies. science and all of academia are frequently puppets of authority, even if only because what you do and do not fund can make the difference. but this can be mitigated if anybody cares.

i think we are seeing bits and pieces each time of a somewhat large, somewhat momentous clash of fear, promise, disappointment, disillusionment, opportunism, desperation, and repositioning. must be watched closely. i don't see much enlightenment thinking out there, but some quiet people probably care. there is danger, but, maybe somewhere in there, a little hope.
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't, and can't see me ever, want authority, the fact that some do suggests mental illness to me.

I also don't generally respect authority in others, I may do on a personal level, but as an abstract thing based on title, rank or professional status, nah. Familiarity in most cases breeds contempt, I've been on the wrong end of "authority" for too long, "authority" that clearly has less than a clue.

All these people are....people....they may, in some, or even in a lot of respects, know, or think they know, more than I do, but they are still people, with all the flaws people have.

No matter how many knighthoods, professorships and public adoration these people may have, they are still people, they are, in some respects, just little scurrying self interested rodents (ala rat race if taking it literally causes offense) that have to occasionally use a toilet - no matter how much some others think the sun shines out of their .......

This doesn't mean I think they are bad people, in most cases, in most cases they appear to be simply following their own imperatives, as evolution and social conditioning has instructed them to do.....but suitable authority figures.....I think not.

But I would think that.....as with hard work and dedication I might, after a lifetime's effort, barely manage to increase my official social class to...scum. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom