{"id":597,"date":"2011-04-07T06:00:08","date_gmt":"2011-04-07T06:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/?p=597"},"modified":"2011-04-06T22:19:25","modified_gmt":"2011-04-06T22:19:25","slug":"on-peer-review-part-451-b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2011\/04\/07\/on-peer-review-part-451-b\/","title":{"rendered":"On peer review, part 451 (b)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I had a conversation on twitter last night with m&#8217;learned friend Nige, who runs the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eastmondmedicomm.com\/Home.html\">most ethical small business<\/a> I know of.<\/p>\n<p>He pointed me at this blog post by Richard Smith at the BMJ, <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2011\/04\/06\/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review\/\">What is post publication peer review?<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>You know, there are days when I wish I hadn&#8217;t used the phrase &#8216;post-publication peer review&#8217; to describe what F1000 does. It&#8217;s inevitably misunderstood. Post-publication peer review, as I intended the phrase, is not and never could be a replacement for peer review &#8216;proper&#8217; (if you like). What F1000 does is look at papers after they&#8217;ve been published and say &#8220;Hey guys (and gals), this one&#8217;s worth reading. Here&#8217;s what it purports to say,&#8221; dot dot dot.<\/p>\n<p>Peer review &#8216;proper&#8217; (if you like) says &#8220;Yeah, they did the right stuff here, but there are a couple more experiments they should do to be sure,&#8221; or something like that. And if you&#8217;re reviewing for a glamour mag, you might also get a comment along the lines of &#8220;ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR TINY LITTLE MINDS?&#8221; or similar. That, especially the first part (whether the experiments were done right, the controls are appropriate, the relevant literature has been reviewed and cetera, &#038;c., etc.)  is not going to happen &#8216;post-publication&#8217;. No way, no how, not ever, uh-uh, over Karl Popper&#8217;s dead body [<em>check that Popper is dead<\/em>\u2014Ed.].<\/p>\n<p>You see, the thing is, the real, incontrovertible and indisputable thing is about science, is that it&#8217;s all provisional. (Henry has made this point somewhat forcibly several times in the past, most famously by asserting &#8220;Everything <em>Nature<\/em> publishes is wrong&#8221;.) Findings reported in papers only ever become less provisional when somebody repeats the experiment in a different lab and gets the same (or similar) results. (Nige and I discussed clinical trials briefly, which is where the ethics thing came up, but even there you should be able to decide on what&#8217;s &#8216;true&#8217; through meta-analyses and Cochrane Reviews and whatnot.)<\/p>\n<p>Reproducibility. <\/p>\n<p>That, and only that, is true post-publication peer review. <\/p>\n<p>Not chatting about a paper on blogs or in <em>Nature<\/em>; not commenting on a manuscript thrown up on a pre-print server; not talking about posters; not even F1000. <\/p>\n<p>So, please, can we drop all this nonsense about doing away with peer review (&#8216;proper&#8217;\u2014if you like)? It&#8217;s not big, and it&#8217;s not clever.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I had a conversation on twitter last night with m&#8217;learned friend Nige, who runs the most ethical small business I know of. He pointed me at this blog post by Richard Smith at the BMJ, What is post publication peer &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/2011\/04\/07\/on-peer-review-part-451-b\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,50,41],"tags":[18,20],"class_list":["post-597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-literature","category-nonsense","category-the-stupid-it-burns","tag-day-job","tag-peer-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/rpg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}