08-01-2021,01:58 PM #4522
Brian8383
- View Profile
- View Forum Posts
- View Forum Threads
Professional Member*
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- napping on the couch
- Posts
- 20,768
- Post Likes
Credit...Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesBy Aaron E. Carroll
Nov. 5, 2018
Even before the recent news that a group of researchers managed to get several ridiculous fake studies published in reputable academic journals, people have been aware of problems with peer review.
Throwing out the system which deems whether research is robust and worth being published would do more harm than good. But it makes sense to be aware of peer reviews potential weaknesses.
Reviewers may be overworked and underprepared. Although theyre experts in the subject they are reading about, they get no specific training to do peer review, and are rarely paid for it. With 2.5 million peer-reviewed papers published annually worldwide and more that are reviewed but never published it can be hard to find enough people to review all the work.
There is evidence that reviewers are not always consistent. A 1982 paper describes a study in which two researchers selected 12 articles already accepted by highly regarded journals, swapped the real names and academic affiliations for false ones, and resubmitted the identical material to the same journals that had already accepted them in the previous 18 to 32 months. Only 8 percent of editors or reviewers noticed the duplication, and three papers were detected and pulled. Of the nine papers that continued through the review process, eight were turned down, with 89 percent of reviewers recommending rejection.
Peer review may be inhibiting innovation. It takes significant reviewer agreement to have a paper accepted. One potential downside is that important research bucking a trend or overturning accepted wisdom may face challenges surviving peer review. In 2015, a study published in P.N.A.S. tracked more than 1,000 manuscripts submitted to three prestigious medical journals. Of the 808 that were published at some point, the 2 percent that were most frequently cited had been rejected by the journals.
An even bigger issue is that peer review may be biased. Reviewers can usually see the names of the authors and their institutions, and multiple studies have shown that reviews preferentially accept or reject articles based on a number of demographic factors. In a study published in eLife last year, researchers created a database consisting of more than 9,000 editors, 43,000 reviewers and 126,000 authors whose work led to about 41,000 articles in 142 journals in a number of domains. They found that women made up only 26 percent of editors, 28 percent of reviewers and 37 percent of authors. Analyses showed that this was not because fewer women were available for each role.
A similar study focusing on earth and space science journals found that women made up only about a quarter of first authors and about 20 percent of reviewers. They had higher acceptance rates than men, though.
In 2012, the journal Nature undertook an internal review of its peer review process, finding balance in its editors and reporters but disparities elsewhere. In 2011, women made up only 14 percent of the more than 5,500 peer reviewers for papers. Only 18 percent of the 34 researchers profiled in 2011-12 were women, and only 19 percent of the articles written for the Comment and World View section were by women.
Its possible women declined opportunities to review, but studies have documented that male editors tend to favor male reviewers. This year, Nature reported that it had increased participation of women in the Comment and World View section to 34 percent, while the percent of reviewers had climbed only to 16 percent.
Unesco estimates that women make up 29 percent of the worldwide science work force.
But there are also data to support the value of peer review. A 1994 study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, reviewed the quality of papers submitted to the journal before and after the peer review and editorial system. Researchers used a tool that assessed the manuscripts quality on 34 items, and their work showed that all but one got better. The biggest improvements were in the discussion of a studys limitations, its generalizations, its use of confidence intervals and the tone of the conclusions. Probably none of these would have occurred without the nudge of peer review.......
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
FAQs
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth's climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels.
Is climate change real and is it happening? ›
The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
What is the evidence that shows the climate is changing? ›
Other observations of recent climate change include a global average sea level rise of 8 inches over the last century; declining sea ice, ice sheet, and glacier size; decreased snow cover and longer frost-free seasons; an approximately 30% more acidic surface ocean; and more frequent high-temperature records being set ...
Do scientists agree on climate change? ›
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
How long do we have until climate change is irreversible? ›
The global average temperature rise is predicted to climb permanently above 1.5°C by between 2026 and 2042, with a central estimate of 2032, while business as usual will see the 2°C breached by 2050 or very soon after [6].
How do we know global warming is real? ›
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
When did global warming start to get bad? ›
The early 1980s would mark a sharp increase in global temperatures. Many experts point to 1988 as a critical turning point when watershed events placed global warming in the spotlight. The summer of 1988 was the hottest on record (although many since then have been hotter).
Is global warming true or false? ›
Studies show that 99 percent of climate scientists who are actively publishing agree that climate change is likely due to human activity. Most of the prominent scientific organizations across the globe have issued statements that publicly endorse this view.
What is the real world evidence of climate change? ›
Arctic summer sea ice cover has shrunk dramatically. The heat content of the ocean has increased. Global average sea level has risen by approximately 16 cm (6 inches) since 1901, due both to the expansion of warmer ocean water and to the addition of melt waters from glaciers and ice sheets on land.
Is climate change a real threat? ›
The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet.
Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming. Human activities have contributed substantially to climate change through: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Reflectivity or Absorption of the Sun's Energy.
How many people don't believe in climate change? ›
Overall, 46% of Americans say human activity is the primary reason why the Earth is warming. By contrast, 26% say warming is mostly caused by natural patterns in the environment and another 14% do not believe there's evidence the Earth is warming at all.
What states are best for global warming? ›
Best states for climate change
- Minnesota. While it might be known for its cold winters, Minnesota is well-equipped to handle climate change. ...
- Illinois. Like Minnesota, Illinois benefits from its regional placement. ...
- Rhode Island. ...
- Maine. ...
- Wyoming. ...
- California. ...
- Florida. ...
- Utah.
Drag from the chromosphere of the Sun would reduce Earth's orbit. These effects will counterbalance the impact of mass loss by the Sun, and the Sun will likely engulf Earth in about 7.59 billion years from now. The drag from the solar atmosphere may cause the orbit of the Moon to decay.
Will the world be livable in 2050? ›
Today, just one percent of the planet falls within so-called “barely liveable” hot zones: by 2050, the ratio could rise to almost twenty percent. In 2100, temperatures could rise so high that spending a few hours outside some major capital cities of South Asia and East Asia could be lethal.
How many years until Earth is uninhabitable due to climate change? ›
Although the Earth will still be within the habitable zone in 250 million years' time, the formation of a supercontinent with elevated CO2 will make most of the world uninhabitable for humans and other mammals. The findings show that only somewhere between 8 and 16 per cent of land would be habitable.
Is climate change real or is it a cycle? ›
Over the course of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot, this is true. However, the rapid warming we're seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades.
Is there any point with climate change? ›
Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.
Will there be climate change in 2050? ›
Since 1880, average global temperatures have increased by about 1 degrees Celsius (1.7° degrees Fahrenheit). Global temperature is projected to warm by about 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7° degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050 and 2-4 degrees Celsius (3.6-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.
What is the current state of climate change in 2024? ›
Temperatures were above average over much of the globe, while most of Australia, Scandinavia and northwest Russia were cooler than average. There is a 61% chance that 2024 will be the warmest year in NOAA's 175-year record and a 100% chance it will rank in the top five.
Professional Member*