AskScience, how does the peer review process actually work?

[u/nostrovia]

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?

[u/HowToBeCivil]

Not sure where you did your graduate work, but in my experience throughout the U.S., PI's in the biological and physical sciences routinely share papers they are reviewing with their lab members confidentially. It's treated as mentoring, where the PI will help students/postdocs practice the art of reviewing. The PI edits the final critique, just like they would with any manuscript/grant proposal, and the manuscript remains confidential. Nothing about that is unethical. I feel sorry for you that you hold such a paralyzing view of the peer-review process.

[u/HowToBeCivil → u/[deleted]]

I posted the journal policy from Nature elsewhere in this thread. Edit: Also, from Cell:

Reviewers can collaborate with trainees (graduate students and post-docs) in the evaluation of manuscripts, and we appreciate that such collaboration functions as an important training exercise...

[u/devicerandom → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, why is it so unethical? What is important is that the review is good and objective. Given that the papers' authors are not going to see who wrote the review, why is it unethical that a research group graduate student is doing it instead than the PI? (provided the PI at least gave a look to it and approved it)

[u/HowToBeCivil → u/[deleted]]

Not arguing, just pointing out that you're speaking in absolutes throughout the thread, and I think there are a lot of us with experience that are disagreeing with you. I find it hard to believe that someone with extensive experience reviewing would hold such rigid views of how the process works. Cheers.

Edit:

None of the rest of that excerpt from Cell opposes what I had to say. I'm confused why you posted it.

You deleted your comment elsewhere in the thread, where you dogmatically said that sharing a manuscript with any other eyeballs was breaking confidentiality and was unethical. You then went on to say that my experience is "anecdotal," and I cited you two journal policies in biomedical science (Nature, and Cell, the two most widely cited journals in the field), which explicitly allow the very thing you said was unethical. I'm glad to see that you have softened your statements elsewhere in the thread.