1. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.Nicole Zwiren, Glenn Zuraw, Ian Young, Michael A. Woodley, Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe, Nick Wilson, Peter Weinberger, Manuel Weinberger, Christoph Wagner, Georg von Wintzigerode, Matt Vogel, Alex Villasenor, Shiloh Vermaak, Carlos A. Vega, Leo Varela, Tine van der Maas, Jennie van der Byl, Paul Vahur, Nicole Turner, Michaela Trimmel, Siro I. Trevisanato, Jack Tozer, Alison Tomlinson, Laura Thompson, David Tavares, Amhayes Tadesse, Johann Summhammer, Mike Sullivan, Carl Stryg, Christina Streli, James Stratford, Gilles St-Pierre, Karri Stokely, Joe Stokely, Reinhard Stindl, Martin Steppan, Johannes H. Sterba, Konstantin Steinhoff, Wolfgang Steinhauser, Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley, Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova, Mels Sonko, Werner F. Sommer, Daphne Anne Sole, Jildou Slofstra, John R. Skoyles, Florian Six, Sibusio Sithole, Beldeu Singh, Jolanta Siller-Matula, Kyle Shields, David Seppi, Laura Seegers, David Scott, Thomas Schwarzgruber, Clemens Sauerzopf, Jairaj Sanand, Markus Salletmaier & Sackl - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (5):359-376.
    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations