‘Sacred Cow’ of Industry Science Cult Should Be Slaughtered for the Good of Humanity, BMJ Editor Says

• ‘Sacred Cow’ of Industry Science Cult Should Be Slaughtered for the Good of Humanity, BMJ Editor Says
  by Ethan A. Huff, http://www.naturalnews.com/  
  (NaturalNews) Widespread acceptance of pre-publication peer review as the “gold standard” of science-based research is entirely misguided, warns a former editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the top scientific journals in the world.
  –
  Richard Smith, who served as the editor of BMJ between 1991 and 2004, has long been critical of the peer review process, which for all intents and purposes isn’t really a science-based approach to keeping tabs on what gets published in science and medical journals.
  –
  “Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense,” says Smith, warning that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the peer review process is an effective method of detecting errors or ensuring that only sound science gets published in the world’s leading journals.
  –
  Ideally, every paper submitted for peer review goes through rigorous examination by multiple experts within the appropriate field. The hope is that any errors or other anomalies will be identified through this process, resulting in only the highest quality material gaining an official stamp of approval prior to publication.
  –
  However, this isn’t always the case, and an increasing number of journal editors are blowing the lid on this highly respected but unsubstantiated litmus test.
  –
  “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have any evidence of its benefit,” contends Smith. “It’s time to slaughter the sacred cow.”
  –
  Peer review is a failure and, ironically, it’s more faith-based than science-based, says Smith
  During a speech he recently gave at an event for the Royal Society, Smith explained how an experiment he helped conduct during his time at BMJ revealed that a striking number of intentional errors added to a test paper made it through the peer review process without being spotted.
  –
  A short paper containing eight deliberate errors was sent to 300 separate reviewers. Smith says that only a handful of these reviewers were able to spot any of the mistakes, and none of the reviewers spotted all eight. Shockingly, 60 of the reviewers spotted no mistakes at all.
  –
  read more.

end