Peer Review and the Pillar of Salt: A Case Study

Autor/in	Powell, James Lawrence
Titel	Peer Review and the Pillar of Salt: A Case Study
Quelle	In: Research Ethics, 19 (2023) 1, S.78-89 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Powell, James Lawrence)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1747-0161
DOI	10.1177/17470161221131491
Schlagwörter	Peer Evaluation; Scientific Research; Journal Articles; Internet; Scientists; Researchers + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Journal article; Zeitschriftenaufsatz; Scientist; Wissenschaftler; Researcher; Forscher
Abstract	Peer review has long been regarded as the gold standard of scientific publication, essential to the integrity of science itself. But, as any publishing scientist knows, peer review has its downside, including long delays and reviewer bias. Until the coming of the Internet, there appeared to be no alternative. Now, articles appear online as preprints almost immediately upon submission. But they lack peer review and thus their scientific standing can be questioned. Post-publication discussion platforms such as PubPeer have proven useful, but are no substitute for pre-publication peer review. Nevertheless, some may be tempted to believe that peer review can now be done without. This article challenges that view by analyzing a recent, non-peer-reviewed article in Skeptical Enquirer, a magazine published by the Committee for "Skeptical Enquiry" (CSI). The article, "Sodom Meteor Strike Claims Should Be Taken With a Pillar of Salt," casts doubt on one of the most widely read scientific articles of the last decade and provides a stern warning of the cost of abandoning peer review. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01