Is peer review failing science? Why do we need rat's penis to realize it?
Initially created to ensure quality, it now prevents innovation, and fail filtering wrong studies, or loophole exploitation from less ethic scientific teams
In the realm of academic scholarship, the peer review process is a critical checkpoint that ensures the quality of published work. It’s a system that has been in place for centuries, introduced in medical publication in the 18th century in UK. It is aiming at acting as a gatekeeper to maintain the integrity of scientific literature. However, recent events and studies have cast a shadow over this time-honored process, raising questions about its effectiveness and reliability.
The peer review process could be as painful as rigorous. When a researcher submits a manuscript to a scientific journal, it is scrutinized by other experts in the same field. These reviewers assess the validity of the research, the accuracy of the results, and the relevance of the conclusions. The goal is to ensure that only high-quality, reliable, and significant research is published.
The process results are very impactful for the scientific community since the notoriety of both scientists and universities are measured by the number of publications as well as the number of related quotes in other publications.
However, the process is far from perfect. It is obviously subject to human error and often criticized human bias. The lack of transparency prevents open discussion, and contribute to the entrenched biases, ultimately decreasing the overall quality of the reviews.
Furthermore, the speed of the peer review process is often painfully slow, with research often being published a year or more after submission. In some cases, reviewers decline requests to review papers because they are outside their area of expertise, or they are too busy. This can further exacerbate the problem of timing and quality control in scientific publishing. The slow pace of the process can also delay the dissemination of new ideas and findings.
The gap between the pace of the scientific race and the lack of momentum of the publication is source of frustrations
There have been notable instances where the peer review process has failed to detect major flaws in research. This led to the publication of incorrect and misleading information, which had far-reaching consequences in the scientific community and beyond in main street. We easily think about the well-known cases of publications related to COVID topics, from the altered results of the trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment to the wrong origine of the virus itself. In 2024 the case of the rat with disproportionate testicles and penis was submitted by a Chinese team from Xi'an Honghui Hospital and published in Frontiers. The illustration create by AI has attracted the interest of the web…
The peer review process can also stifle innovation. It tends to favor established paradigms and can be resistant to groundbreaking ideas. This conservatism can prevent the publication of innovative research, slowing the progress of science.
While the peer review process remains today a vital part of scientific research, it is clear that it has significant shortcomings.
There is a pressing need for better path to publication in a scientific world moving faster than ever, with numerous young international universities seeking for cheap recognition, and a very high volume of low-quality studies coproduced by AI.
Uphold scientific integrity while also promoting the advancement of knowledge and innovation is a modern challenge. The scientific community must come together to address these issues and work towards a more effective and efficient publication system.
