Blog: Hilda Bastian, "5 Things We Learned About Peer Review in 2019"

[Andy]

For something so fundamental to the practice of science, it’s perplexing that it took so long for serious research into editorial peer review to get off the ground. The earliest experimental study I could find was published in 1977, and there still aren’t many of them. I guess it’s a classic case of fish not seeing the water they’re swimming in.

I’ve written a couple of posts covering milestones in peer review research up to the end of 2018. If you want to catch up on the main things we know about peer review at journals, there are links to those at the bottom of this post. Now let’s get straight to the year’s highlights – and please let me know via the comments or Twitter if you know of more studies that have moved us forward.

https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2019/12/31/5-things-we-learned-about-peer-review-in-2019/

 

[alktipping]

she missed out the blindingly obvious statement that peer review has blatantly failed when editors are disinterested in facts or methodology and of course their sole motive to publish is profit .