Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.

W E Stehbens1

  • 1Department of Pathology, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand.

Medical Hypotheses
|May 26, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Definition of the arterial intima.

Cardiovascular pathology : the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology·2015
Same author

Hypothetical hypercholesterolaemia and atherosclerosis.

Medical hypotheses·2004
Same author

The fatigue hypothesis of plaque rupture and atherosclerosis.

Medical hypotheses·2002
Same author

Misperception of adaptation and remodeling in vascular pathology.

Cardiovascular pathology : the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology·2002
Same author

Analysis of definitions and word misusage in vascular pathology.

Cardiovascular pathology : the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology·2001
Same author

Ventricular septal defect and multiple aneurysms.

Cardiovascular pathology : the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology·2001
Same journal

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide-Induced Central Sensitization: A Hypothesis for Long COVID Symptoms.

Medical hypotheses·2026
Same journal

Subclinical mastitis during lactation: a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer?

Medical hypotheses·2025
Same journal

The Role of Hemispheric Sensory Shifts: Impacts on Stretch Reflex and Motor Plasticity Post-Stroke.

Medical hypotheses·2025
Same journal

Neuron-Targeted Exosome Therapy: A Novel Approach for Treating Cardiogenic Dementia via RyR2 Inhibition.

Medical hypotheses·2025
Same journal

How the Somatosensory System Adapts to the Motor Change in Stroke: A Hemispheric Shift?

Medical hypotheses·2024
Same journal

Unstable Plaque is a Treatable Cause of Cognitive Decline.

Medical hypotheses·2024
See all related articles

The scientific peer review system often fails to detect misconduct and stifles innovation due to reviewer limitations. Improving editorial oversight, reviewer transparency, and encouraging critical debate can enhance scientific self-correction.

Area of Science:

  • Scientific publishing
  • Scholarly communication
  • Research integrity

Background:

  • The current peer review system has limitations in detecting fraud, plagiarism, and errors.
  • Editorial policies can be reluctant to publish criticisms or unconventional findings, hindering scientific progress.
  • Mediocrity and innovative science suppression are perpetuated by conflicts of interest and reviewer deficiencies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the shortcomings of the existing peer review system.
  • To propose recommendations for improving the self-correction mechanisms within scientific publishing.
  • To address the perpetuation of mediocrity and the stifling of innovative research.

Main Methods:

  • Critical analysis of the peer review process.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of editorial practices and reviewer conduct.
  • Literature review on scientific publishing and research integrity.

    • Main Results:

    • Peer review fails to consistently identify fraud, plagiarism, poor quality, or significant errors.
    • Reviewer anonymity and conflicts of interest compromise the integrity of the review process.
    • Editorial reluctance to address criticisms or publish dissenting views contributes to scientific stagnation.

    Conclusions:

    • The editor should serve as the primary court of appeal for scientific discourse.
    • Recommendations for self-correction include enhancing editorial quality control of peer reviews.
    • Abolishing reviewer anonymity and actively encouraging critical debate of unorthodox submissions are crucial for scientific advancement.