In a fascinating and provocative experiment, researchers Peters and Ceci once resubmitted 12 already-published psychology articles to the same journals that had originally accepted them. The twist? They changed only the names and affiliations of the authors. What happened next exposed cracks in the foundations of academic peer review.
Only 3 of the 12 resubmissions were identified as
duplicates. Of the 9 that underwent full peer review again, 8 were rejected, most
for "serious methodological flaws." The same papers that had
previously passed muster were now deemed unworthy of publication.
Psychologist John Bartko later reflected on these findings
in a commentary titled "The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted
Again". His takeaway? The peer-review process, while central to
academic credibility, may be far less consistent and objective than many
assume. Reviewer bias, institutional prestige, and systemic flaws can skew
decisions and undermine trust in the system.
This experiment, now decades old, still resonates today. It
reminds us that peer review is a human process, imperfect and in need of
constant reflection and improvement.
Do you trust peer review? Or is it time to rethink how we
judge good science?
No comments:
Post a Comment