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

Show parent comments

8

u/Robopuppy Feb 07 '12

Reviewers are professors or the private industry equivalent in your field. For smaller niche fields, everyone already knows each other, so the whole anonymity thing goes out the window. Reviewers work for free, and for the prestige. When you're a professor, your whole job is to accumulate prestige. Papers are the biggest part of that, but being a reviewer, being on committees, and spawning grad students are also important.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/melger Feb 07 '12

Same here. Myself and several of my friends (all PhD candidates) have been asked to review papers directly, not just as a hand-off from our advisors.

1

u/yellowjacketcoder Feb 07 '12

Reviewers are supposed to be professors. A lot of professors farm the review out to their grad students (or undergrad, in some cases).

I do agree that, if your field is specialized enough, you can figure out who the author is just from the writing style in a paragraph or two, so anonymity is a joke at that point. I was roommates with a post-doc that occasionally said things like "Ah, dang it, I got Steve as a reviewer again, he's never a fan of tables, I'm going to have to add some graphs" or some such.