With last weeks retractions of two Covid-19 papers from a pair of the worlds top medical journals, the scientific community is once again wrestling withthe question that arises any time ahigh-profile publication blows up: Could this have been prevented?

Entire forests have been felled so scholars can write papers on the flawed process of peer review, in which journal editors ask (usually three) outside experts to read a manuscript for rigor, methodological soundness, consistency, and overall quality. Peer review is rife with gender bias. Reviewers try to block competitors papers. They steal ideas. They favor authors from prestigious institutions. The process is hardly better than chance at keeping bad studies from being published. It does little to improve papers.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis.Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

Follow this link:
After retractions of two Covid-19 papers, scientists ask what went wrong - STAT

Comments are closed.