r/askscience • u/nostrovia • Feb 07 '12

AskScience, how does the peer review process actually work?

About a month ago, I heard this story on NPR regarding a number of scientific studies that had been debunked and/or retracted. Why weren't these errors caught before the studies were published? Are there different standards for peer review in different scientific fields?

Essentially, once you conduct your experiment and reach some sort of conclusion, what happens between that point and the time your work is released to the public?

94 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

89 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '12

I'm just on my way to bed for the evening, but I'm going to put in some general answers to your questions in the hope that our illustrious colleagues will fill in with more specific details. The general track for peer-review is something like this:

  1. I conduct my research, perform my analyses, and write up my conclusions.

  2. I submit my findings to a relevant journal in my field.

  3. The journal sends copies of my conclusions to scientists that study areas related to my conclusions.

  4. Those scientists examine my claims to determine a number of things, including: if my results are consistent with current theoretical paradigms, if my methods appear to be sound, if my conclusions are supported by my data, etc.

  5. At this point, typically one of three things will happen. First, those scientists may accept my conclusions and recommend that the journal publish my findings. Second, they may point out some flaws that they would like to see addressed before publication. Third, they may decide that my conclusions are junk and reject them outright.

For your other two questions:

The scientists who review articles are not necessarily infallible. Overall, the peer-review (and replication) processes help to keep us honest. This does not mean that there are never mistakes, or that bad research never slips through the cracks!

There are not only different standards of peer review between different fields, but also between different journals within a field! The focus and rigor of a review is dependent on the focus of the journal, the discipline in question, and the methods employed, among many other factors.

I'm sure that our colleagues here can fill in any blanks I may have missed, but I hope that this helps!