The Imperfection of Peer Review - Case Study Example

The Nature of Peer Review Adam J. Gorski Hugh Culik English 321 May 30th, 2008 Peer review is considered as an “acceptable standard and modern scientific-based approach” by different fields of studies related to engineering, medicine, healthcare, sociology and information technology among others (Engber). For this reason, many people consider the information presented on peer review as a basis for in making conclusions based on research. Aiming to prove the imperfection of peer review; the problems peer review is attempting to solve, target audience of a peer-reviewed article, and the relationship between the articles’ author, audiences, and the reviewers will be carefully examined. Prior to the conclusion, the researcher will identify and discuss some problems related to peer-reviewed journals/articles. Problems Peer Review is Attempts to Solve Aside from making it easier for the audiences to read scientific-based studies, peer reviewing process does not necessarily improve the overall quality of a research study. A good example is the case of Woo-Suk Hwang who submitted a research paper on stem cell was published as peer review article. Basically, the author was been accused and charged with fraud and embezzlement for being actively involved with the ethical controversies behind the use of human embryo in the research study of stem cell. (BBC News) In line with this matter, several researchers made a confirmation of the possibility that the works or articles written by Woo-Suk Hwang on embryonic stem cells from the use of an adult human tissue are not scientifically proven. (Check and Cyranoski) Unfortunately, the system of peer review failed to detect the flaws in the article submitted by Woo-Suk Hwang. (McCook) Basically, there are some factors that can significantly affect the editors’ accuracy when editing these papers. This includes: (1) the editors’ mood to critically self-examine each word and sentences including the methodology part and conclusion of the study (Engber); (2) possible conflict of interest on the part of either the author(s) and/or editor(s) which leads to exaggerate the results of the study (Benos et al.; McCook); (3) corruption between the editors and the author(s) (Vierse); (4) the number of submitted papers for peer review is significantly more than the number of qualified editors causing a decline in the quality of edited papers (McCook); (5) medical practitioners may use peer review as a way of competing with each other (Chu); and (6) pharmacies like Pfizer may also take advantage of peer review for business purposes rather than health maintenance or preservation (Walter). In relation to peer review’s short comings, fraud is not always prevented and misinformation can be published for anyone to read. (Engber) Audience of a Peer-Reviewed Article The common audience of peer-reviewed articles includes: (1) the students; (2) teachers; (3) educational, government or any private institutions; and (4) medical and healthcare professionals such as physicians, nurses, and surgeons among others including individuals working on other fields related to the studies like engineering, information technology, sociology. (ASCE Publications; Electronic Journal of Sociology; Forum on Education Abroad; JITE; Medscape Today) Relationship between the Articles’ Author, Target Audiences and the Reviewers There is a strong relationship between the articles’ author, target audiences, and the reviewers in the sense that the target audiences of the peer reviewed journals / articles are giving most of the trust on the authors’ judgment or research findings that has been published for public use. Aiming to provide the readers with properly written and accurate research findings, the articles’ authors are entrusting their work to qualified reviewers of a given peer review organization. For this reason, the three groups of peer reviews’ stakeholders need to work hand-in-hand in order to develop several more promising research-based studies in the future. Discussion Despite the effort of peer review in filtering out papers that are not written systematically, concluded using faulty experimental methods, or writing irrelevant conclusions or research findings to improve the quality of a scientific-based study (Engber), it remains inevitable for some incorrect research studies to be published under a particular peer-reviewed journal or article. As a result, millions of students, academic staffs and other professionals can be misinformed and misguided by some of the faulty peer reviewed journals. Given that millions of individuals within and outside the United States are heavily relying on peer review journals, large pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer is taking advantage of peer review as a strategic advertising method in order to increase the company’s profitability. (Walter) It is not only businesses organizations who have a personal interest in publishing a research study, doctors and other health care professionals are also taking advantage of these resources in order to gain publicity and fame with regards to their chosen profession. For example: Pfizer could take advantage of publishing their new drugs on peer review journals even without having completed a study that will identify a list of possible side-effects of the drug. For this reason, more physicians may recommend the drug to people despite the potential adverse effect of the drug. Conclusion Peer review is a central feature of almost all contemporary disciplines: mathematics, sciences, humanities, social sciences, etc. It is a dominant feature of our cultures intellectual activity. Reviewers and editors of peer review play a crucial role in maintaining and preserving good quality journals and other research-based studies. Given that the target audience of peer reviewed journals are giving their full trust to the authors’ judgment within a particular study, reviewers and editors of peer review should be strict enough to remove all faulty and obviously biased research studies in order not to mislead the readers especially when the journal is dealing with pharmacological products that could endanger human lives. (Walter) The best way to improve the quality of peer reviewed journals is to limit the research-based studies each peer review organization attempts to publish each year. Having lesser pressure will enable the reviewers and editors of peer review to focus more on detecting possible errors in submitted research studies. (McCook) Grading Rubric Adaptation of classs posted research 1-10 each avoids duplication 10 selects key points 7 sequences information for insight and clarity 7 uses sources cited 10 Introduction 1-10 each Integrates concepts of sub-sections into a larger claim 7 Identifies a “problematic” rather than uses an argumentative thesis 7 Body Paragraphs 1-10 each Body paragraphs develop as described in “4 function” model www.culik.com/hugh/compclass/bodyparagraphs.html 7 Evidence/data/etc. Connects to interpretive statements 7 Transitions are logical 7 Transitions rely on clear stylistic tools such as repetition 7 Transitions serve the logic of the sequence of sub-topics 7 Evolution of claim: enter score at line below that best describes paper. 0-200 A: Paper carefully develops the complexity of the problem to arrive at a larger, more intelligent, and clarified problematic B: Paper simply repeats a thesis throughout the paragraphs without developing, limiting, or otherwise making it more complex. C: The paper uses a simplistic thesis, or the paper has no thesis 140 Participating in the Discourse Community: enter score at line below that best describes paper 0-100 A: Paper effectively uses established discourse – articles, books, images, etc. -- to buttress claims and identify issues AND citations formats are correct B: Paper uses supporting materials, but the material is occasionally unconnected to the claim AND/OR citation formats are occasionally incorrect. 70 C: Paper uses either no supporting materials and/or frequently uses materials unconnected to its statements AND/OR citation formats are frequently inadequate. Conclusion 0-200 Conclusion integrates the insights made about the problematic issue, and it Conclusion achieves a “boost” that provides additional insight, questions, problematics, or other considerations 150 Sentence Clarity: enter score at line below that best describes paper 0-100 A: Meaning is in the words on the page; reader does not have to supply inferences. B: Writer occasionally expects reader to supply key connections between facts and ideas or among ideas. C: Writer regularly confuses her/his own knowledge of the subject with the readers knowledge. 75 Mechanics/grammar: enter score at line below that best describes paper 0-100 A: Mechanics/grammar are those expected by a university audience B: Mechanics/grammar recognize expectations of a professional audience but occasionally depart from those expectations. C: Mechanics/grammar frequently depart from expectations of professional audiences and interfere with the reading. 75 Total Points 593 Percentage 73.21% References: "ASCE Publications." 2008. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 30 May 2008 . "BBC News." 12 May 2006. Profile: Hwang Woo-suk . 21 June 2008 . Benos, Dale J. and et al. "The Ups and Downs of Peer Review." Advances in Physiology Education (2007): 31(Dec.):145 - 152. Check, Erika and David Cyranoski. “Special Report Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout.” Nature (2005): Vol. 438, pp. 1056 - 1057. Chu, Jeff. "Time." 7 August 2005. Doctors Who Hurt Doctors. 30 May 2008 . "Electronic Journal of Sociology." 2008. 30 May 2008 . Engber, Daniel. "Slate." 5 April 2005. Quality Control: The Case Against Peer Review. 30 May 2008 . "Forum on Education Abroad." 2008. QUIP FAQs. 30 May 2008 . "JITE." 27 May 2008a. The Journal of Information Technology Education. 30 May 2008 . "JITE." 31 December 2007. The Journal of Information Technology Education: Mission. 30 May 2008 . McCook, Alison. "Is Peer Review Broken?" The Scientist (2006): 20(2):26. "Medscape Today." 2008. Medscapes Mission. 30 May 2008 . "Medscape Today." 2008. About Medscape. 30 May 2008 . Vierse, Lisa. "BNet." April 2002. Taking Fear Out of the Peer Review Process. 30 May 2008 . Walter, Patrick. "Peer Reviewers Names to Remain a Secret." Chemistry and Industry (2008): 7(1):5. White, Caroline. "Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer Review." British Medical Journal (2003): 326(February 1): 241. Read More