Congresos sobre Peer-Reviewing

Son varios los congresos que, de forma periódica, se organizan en el mundo para discutir los pros y contras del sistema de peer-reviewing y proponen modos de mejorarlo o alternativas para sustituirlo.

En uno de los CFP (Call for Papers, o invitación para mandar paper) de este año de uno de estos congresos se dicen cosas como las siguientes:

"Only the 8% of the Scientific Research Society's members agreed that 'peer review works well as it is'(Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192)"

"An exponentially increasing number of studies and experience-based editors' opinions are clear and explicit about peer review weaknesses and failures."


"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science. (Horrobin,2001) Horrobin concludes that peer review 'is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance'."

"If 'peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market' affirmed Drummond Rennie (Smith, 2010, p.1), deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and who intellectually provided support for the international congresses of peer review that have been held, since 1989, every four years. If peer review was a drug, he added, it 'would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws'." (Ibid)

"Few days ago, Carl Zimmer (2012) reported in the New York Time that, according to a study made by PubMed data base, the number of articles retracted from scientific journals increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. 6000% of increment in 10 years! This 'Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform'." (Ibid)

Sin dudar de la validez científca de los datos que suportan estas afirmaciones (no los he comprobado), probablemente la redacción es exagerada pero destaca las debilidades de un sistema de evaluación de resultados que no parece perfecto. Y no sólo se aplica a papers, el peer-reviewing también se utiliza en el proceso de revisión de los proyectos de investigación financiados de los que disfrutamos en los grupos de la universidad por ejemplo...

Me pregunto qué proceso de revisión de artículos se utiliza en estos congresos sobre el peer-reviewing ;)