Media release

From: RiAus

COSMOS INVESTIGATION &  SURVEY

PEER REVIEWS: THE ELEPHANT IN THE LAB

SURVEY SHOWS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY LOSING FAITH IN CRUCIAL CROSS-CHECK SYSTEM

Science has a problem and at the heart of it is a cornerstone of modern scientific rigour.  The peer review is a crucial cross-check of research by experts ahead of being formally published.  The ultimate endorsement of good work having been done, delivering confidence to colleagues and the public at large that the right processes have been pursued and the findings are sound.

But increasingly, the peer review process itself is under the spotlight, and there are bad apples getting a lot of attention.   So in a world awash with ‘alternative facts’ what has changed, and is this about the process, the perception, or both?

This Friday Oct 14, Australia’s leading science publication COSMOS will publish a special five-part investigation into what constitutes a growing crisis of confidence surrounding the peer review system, for so long a pillar of how science gets done (and hopefully done well).   The series will appear on the premium Cosmos Weekly feed.

PEER REVIEW CONFIDENCE SURVEY

• As a prelude to this special investigation, COSMOS has released the findings of a sounding survey of a cross section of Australian scientists.  It indicates a significant depth of concern that faith is being lost in this crucial scientific standard.    The survey results appear on www.cosmosmagazine.com
• COSMOS Deputy digital news editor Ian Mannix notes that the upcoming feature, and the sounding survey results, show that the scientific community itself is indicating an erosion of confidence in the peer review system, to the point where some believe it is failing and may no longer be fit for purpose.  The broader questions of how this has come about, and the best way forward, are also examined.
• COSMOS has surveyed 187 scientists with PhDs or doctorates.
• The vast majority (94%) have served as a peer reviewer on a doctorate or higher level of research.
• More than 43% of those who have worked as a peer reviewer have been concerned that the original data may be fraudulent, while a further 9% weren’t totally sure.
• 64% of respondents believe reviewers should be able to access the original data in the research, while another 27% believe it was ‘maybe’ a worthwhile thing to do.
• Nearly a quarter of those surveyed labelled the peer review system either ‘poor’ or ‘terrible’, while a third classed it as just ‘fair’.
• Further sounding survey results can be found on www.cosmosmagazine.com while the special investigation into peer reviews will appear on Cosmos Weekly on Friday Oct 14.