{"id":20905,"date":"2022-11-01T10:38:06","date_gmt":"2022-11-01T08:38:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=20905"},"modified":"2022-11-01T10:38:06","modified_gmt":"2022-11-01T08:38:06","slug":"peer-review-in-peril","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2022\/11\/peer-review-in-peril\/","title":{"rendered":"Peer review in peril"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/cosmosmagazine.com\/science\/peer-review-peril\/\">Cosmos<\/a> has an interesting article<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The list of retractions and editorial issues of concern, even from the most-respected peer-reviewed journals, swells daily, exposing the underlying problem of expecting peer review to act as the gatekeeper for scientific rectitude and rigour. This is a job for which it is woefully inadequate.<br \/>\nAcademic peer review became an integral part of the scientific publishing process in the early 1970s and quickly became synonymous with trustworthiness \u2013 both of the journal and of the science itself&#8230;\u201cOne of the biggest issues in peer review is the lack of incentive to do a good job,\u201d says medical researcher Dr Hannah Wardill, from the University of Adelaide. \u201cThere is no oversight and no training. People are just so thinly spread. None of these factors facilitate a robust and thorough peer-review system.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"bottom-note\">\n  <span class=\"mod1\">CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 12.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cosmos has an interesting article The list of retractions and editorial issues of concern, even from the most-respected peer-reviewed journals, swells daily, exposing the underlying problem of expecting peer review to act as the gatekeeper for scientific rectitude and rigour. This is a job for which it is woefully inadequate. Academic peer review became an &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2022\/11\/peer-review-in-peril\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Peer review in peril<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-note-worthy","category-philosophy-of-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20905"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20905\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20914,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20905\/revisions\/20914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}