Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals

By Richard Smith. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006

1,053 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? (2019, background): “Whilst there are concerns about peer-review processes within the scientific community (e.g., Smith, 2006), articles in this review were limited to those published in peer-reviewed journals, due to their general trustworthiness in academia and the rigorous review processes undertaken (Nicholas et…”
Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? (2021, background): “Decisiveness: A good review should take a clear stance, selecting high-quality submissions for publication and suggesting others not be accepted (Jefferson et al., 2002a; Smith, 2006).”
Bias in peer review (2013, neutral): “This suggests that, for researchers, " the most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it " (Smith, 2006, p. 180).”
What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017, background): “Smith, an experienced editor, for example, reports reviewers stealing ideas and passing them off as their own, or intentional blocking or delaying publication of competitors’ ideas through harsh reviews (Smith, 2006).”