Dr. Benny Peiser 28.04.2008 16:11 +Feedback
Terence Kealey: The limitations of peer review
Which is more likely to be reliable, a news story in The Times or a peer-reviewed paper in The Lancet? As the recent volte-face over the dangers of vitamin supplements shows, the newspaper story may be the more credible. Peer-reviewed science is forever doing these volte-face (can you remember if coffee is good or bad for you this week?) but The Times is not suddenly going to announce that, er, sorry, it has discovered that China is in fact a parliamentary democracy. Peer review is the modern sacred cow. “Has it been peer-reviewed?” people ask, breathlessly, when presented with a finding. But peer review is not definitive.