While the practice has its good side, there are several ways that it greatly impedes progress, and the bad greatly outweighs the good.
Recent actions show reform is in the wind, but much remains to be done, especially on climate.
When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.
With a torrent of reality leaking into academic journals, can the media hold back the flood?
The review committee includes no one willing to correct the flaws in the assessment.
Peer review is the evaluation of submitted journal articles that report specific research results. The Red Team will critique a huge assessment report that purports to summarize an entire body of science.
“‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’ should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever,” the authors concluded. “The paper is academically worthless nonsense. The question that now needs to be answered is, ‘How can we restore the reliability of the peer-review process?’
Mounting evidence that the EPA falsifies and misconstrues evidence and ignores contrary scientific studies in order to justify its outrageous, harmful regulations. CFACT analyst Larry Bell says the time has come to regelate the EPA to the boneyard and return environmental decision making to state regulators.
The next time a warming campaigner shrilly throws the sanctity of "peer review" in your face, don't mince words. Tell them straight. Peer review is dead.
From two unusually candid global warming academics own pens -- it is OK to lie about climate. The title of the study they published is "Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements"