How to check if something's peer reviewed?

[Baby Astronaut]

Could be an oversight, but I don't recall it ever saying "peer-reviewed by _____ and _____" in a study or research printing.

 

It occurred to me as I was reading through papers in the Scholars Research Library. How can one tell what's been peer-reviewed or not?

 

Scholars Research Library journals offering peer-reviewed, scientifically based articles and original research, this contains information that will assist you in understanding intricacies of sciences. Scholars Research Library journals provide you with sound and expert research and advice to help you offer expertise to broaden information on the technology or the application of science

 

The entry page has the above info, then if you click on the "Archives of Applied Science Research" link, you can browse papers or use the embedded google search on their page for narrowing it down to a term.

 

I'd like to be able to quickly tell which are the peer-reviewed ones -- and by who....like how many of the peer reviewers are trusted sources, for instance. Also, not just for that website, but I'd like to know for any scientific paper I happen across on the net which includes details on how they've conducted experiments and such.

[Klaynos]

I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers.

 

As for which are and are not the only method I am aware of is by knowing the journal. Most of the journals publish online their reviewing methods.

[ajb]

I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers.

 

Referees tend to be anonymous. I think this helps remove any possible hard feelings and resentment when rejecting papers.

[CharonY]

There are only few that have an open peer review, and even then it is mostly voluntarily. Besides that you will have to check the journal, as Klaynos said. If they do not describe a review process, it is not peer-reviewed.

Also a number of database (e.g. Pubmed) only list paper from peer-reviewed journals.

[Mokele]

Basically, check the journal website. If it's a peer-reviewed journal, it'll say as much. If it doesn't have a website, it's probably not worth reading.

[ajb]

Basically, check the journal website. If it's a peer-reviewed journal, it'll say as much. If it doesn't have a website, it's probably not worth reading.

 

The websites should give a statement that they are peer-review, list the editors

and outline the subjects, standards etc required. Exactly how the process works and who refereed what is far less open.

[Baby Astronaut]

There are only few that have an open peer review, and even then it is mostly voluntarily. Besides that you will have to check the journal, as Klaynos said. If they do not describe a review process, it is not peer-reviewed.

Also a number of database (e.g. Pubmed) only list paper from peer-reviewed journals.

Would it normally list the sections that were peer reviewed...and how? (Like notes or whatnot)

 

Basically, check the journal website. If it's a peer-reviewed journal, it'll say as much. If it doesn't have a website, it's probably not worth reading.

Is there ever a claim of being peer-reviewed but it turns out false? How can one double-check if the reviewers are mostly unknown/anonymous?

 

 

 

Also, I'd like to bring up a point StringJunky made that I found surprising as well.

 

In bold...

Not even amongst professional scientists it seems. To quote from ajb and Klaynos in Baby Astronaut's thread about checking if something's been through peer review:

 

I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers. - Klaynos

 

Referees tend to be anonymous. I think this helps remove any possible hard feelings and resentment when rejecting papers.- AJB

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46870

 

I was surprised to learn that the source of any scientific critique in the peer review process is anonymous.

 

If scientists can't take critical analysis on the chin from a transparent source, it's hardly surprising that laymen can't take it on these boards either!

 

How in the world can science operate most effectively without ultimate transparency in such a very important process? It didn't just baffle me to read that, it practically floored me, as I had an entirely different picture of how scientific review normally functions.

 

 

Just my opinion: it's of critical importance being able to backtrack and identify everyone in the process. It seems like more than just common sense.

 

The info that follows pissed me off, as I wondered how many other so-called "science" papers in circulation might be tainting not only science but all the hard work and level of accuracy that scientists built over centuries of discipline and peer review.

 

Merck pays Elsevier to publish fake journal

Elsevier has confessed that an additional five titles published between the years of 2000-2005 were also sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and presented as peer-reviewed journals.

 

Merck Paid for Medical ‘Journal’ Without Disclosure

The Merck marketing compilation was unusual in that it looked like an independent peer-reviewed medical journal. It even called itself a “journal,” without indicating in any of the issues that Merck had paid for it.

 

 

So then, looking up Elsevier I discovered more about the company that on further research led me to other faked studies by (its partner in crime) Merck and the familiar patterns of deceit...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib#Fabricated_efficacy_studies

On March 11, 2009, Scott S. Reuben...revealed that data for 21 studies he had authored for the efficacy of the drug (along with others such as celecoxib) had been fabricated in order to augment the analgesic effects of the drugs

.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib#VIGOR_study

The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study...had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack)

........

Months after the preliminary version of VIGOR was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the journal editors learned that certain data reported to the FDA were not included in the NEJM article...The editors wrote an editorial accusing the authors of deliberately withholding the data[8].

 

 

I don't think a lot of that could occur as easily if the process were more open.

[Mokele]

Is there ever a claim of being peer-reviewed but it turns out false? How can one double-check if the reviewers are mostly unknown/anonymous?

 

Yes, I know of one "peer-reviewed" journal from Australia which is the sole output of one crackpot for his "revised" taxonomies. The dead giveaway is that he's the editor, sole reviewer, and the only author ever published.

 

 

However, as I mentioned in another thread, just because it's peer reviewed doesn't mean it's *right*, or even not embarrassingly wrong. Always read critically.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In any case, I am informed by two of my professors that once you enter a narrow field of research, there are no anonymous peer reviews. They're supposed to be anonymous, but you know every other person who's an expert on the subject and you can recognize their writing, so it doesn't matter if they're not explicitly named.

[CharonY]

What Cap'n says is mostly true, once you know other experts on your field you will recognize their style.

 

However the basic idea is that as an referee you can give points without fear of repercussions. Another aspect is that there is a lot of academic infighting. Essentially you have to see that everyone in a given field is a potential competitor as well as potential evaluator for a given grant. Also, like it or not, junior scientists are always at a big disadvantage.

Now, if you are a junior scientist reviewing a senior bigshot and realize that the paper is crap you are in a bind what to do. Shoot it down, but fearing that it will have repercussions on your career? I am not saying that there will be any, but the fear that something might happen, especially in an uncertain career as academia, one tends not to take chances.

Academic science is not a magical fairy land where human nature suddenly dissipates. Couple it with the high-risk career it entails and you can easily see why it is unrealistic to assume that science will be conducted in its purest form. Humans tend to get in the way.

[Mokele]

I actually disagree with Cap'n & CharonY - Unless someone has a *highly* distinctive style of writing, it's pretty hard to tell who's who from an anonymous review. A few of my profs have noted that "No matter who you think gave you a bad review, you're wrong. Attempting to start something over it is a guaranteed mistake."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suppose I should note that the professor who told me this works in a field of medieval English literature that, by her own admission, has only about 50 other people who are ever interested enough to even read the papers she publishes. So it's a very small niche.

[CharonY]

I agree with your last statement. But from personal experience I would disagree with the one before a little bit. I overstated the the ease with which it is possible, though. I should rather rephrase it that it is possible, just not on a regular basis, unless the field is very very narrow. I.e. you do not have more than a dozen or so qualified reviewers.

 

I also have to add that in the cases where I was approached by the reviewers and thus got my guesses confirmed, the reviews were all positive, of course.

It rarely happens that someone admits of shooting down someone's paper.

It also depends if the PI is actually doing the review or whether he is passing it on to his postdocs. The latter should actually not happen, but sometimes it does. But again, it depends on the field and how well you know the opinions of certain groups within the fields. If the review includes very specific viewpoints one can deduce it fairly well at times.

 

Edit: K, so Cap'n and me bow to Mokele's wisdom at the same time. All hail the lizard.