Weaponizing the Peer Review System

C. Shaw
{"title":"Weaponizing the Peer Review System","authors":"C. Shaw","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v1i1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The long-revered “peer review” process, as it is currently being applied in the health sciences, is increasingly controlled by commercial interests that are in too many instances using it as a tool forcing technical publications in prestige journals and books toward certain outcomes favorable to those interests. The “peer review” process has in the last two decades especially, increasingly become a process to serve the interests of the manufacturers and promoters of drugs and medicines. Although it was conceived as a way to ensure quality in academic and scientific publications it has increasingly, especially in the health sciences, taken on a commercial aspect with power, momentum, and governmental support that enables it to be used to against unwanted outcomes that threaten the bottom line of those commercial interests. This paper examines the process as it was intended to be used and contrasts its good purposes for uses to which some bad actors are presently perverting it. The practical limits of the problem and remedies to staunch the bleeding, so to speak, are plainly laid out. There is no intention to give legal advice, but merely to examine recent experience looking toward what can be done to preserve the good and valid uses of the imperfect process of peer review.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"17 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v1i1.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The long-revered “peer review” process, as it is currently being applied in the health sciences, is increasingly controlled by commercial interests that are in too many instances using it as a tool forcing technical publications in prestige journals and books toward certain outcomes favorable to those interests. The “peer review” process has in the last two decades especially, increasingly become a process to serve the interests of the manufacturers and promoters of drugs and medicines. Although it was conceived as a way to ensure quality in academic and scientific publications it has increasingly, especially in the health sciences, taken on a commercial aspect with power, momentum, and governmental support that enables it to be used to against unwanted outcomes that threaten the bottom line of those commercial interests. This paper examines the process as it was intended to be used and contrasts its good purposes for uses to which some bad actors are presently perverting it. The practical limits of the problem and remedies to staunch the bleeding, so to speak, are plainly laid out. There is no intention to give legal advice, but merely to examine recent experience looking toward what can be done to preserve the good and valid uses of the imperfect process of peer review.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将同行评议制度武器化
长期以来备受推崇的“同行评议”程序,目前正被应用于健康科学领域,越来越受到商业利益集团的控制,在太多的情况下,商业利益集团将其作为一种工具,迫使有声望的期刊和书籍中的技术出版物朝着有利于自己利益的方向发展。特别是在过去的二十年中,“同行评审”过程日益成为服务于药品和药品制造商和促销者利益的过程。虽然它被设想为确保学术和科学出版物质量的一种方式,但它越来越多地,特别是在卫生科学领域,具有商业方面的权力、势头和政府支持,使其能够用来对抗威胁这些商业利益底线的不希望的结果。本文考察了这一过程,因为它是打算使用的,并对比了它的良好用途,一些不良行为者目前正在滥用它。可以说,这个问题的实际范围和止血的补救措施都清楚地列出了。本文无意提供法律建议,而仅仅是研究最近的经验,寻找如何保持不完善的同行评议过程的良好和有效利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study Adjuvant Activity and Toxicological Risks of Lipid Nanoparticles Contained in the COVID‑19 “mRNA Vaccines” Perceived Experience in Social Circles with COVID-19 Injections and COVID-19 “Vaccine” Mandates: An Online Survey of the United States Population How Many Deaths Can Statistically Be Attributed to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Injections? An Analysis of German Health Data from 2021 The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1