@MikeTaylor see @deevybee ‘s perfect response to @Richard56, In defence of peer review, from au, ed & rew side http://t.co/32T5EtLLsV
@MikeTaylor see @deevybee ‘s perfect response to @Richard56, In defence of peer review, from au, ed & rew side http://t.co/32T5EtLLsV
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" by @Richard56 is one of the most disturbing papers I have ever read. http://t.co/8mdoIH7fGh Comments?
"attempts have been made to improve peer review...none of these methods have made much difference": http://t.co/nXXp7BXUwE
#peerreview waste of time? by @Richard56 a most disturbing article http://t.co/pan95BGC6i via @MikeTaylor
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" by @Richard56 is one of the most disturbing papers I have ever read. http://t.co/8mdoIH7fGh Comments?
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" by @Richard56 is one of the most disturbing papers I have ever read. http://t.co/8mdoIH7fGh Comments?
"Classical peer review: an empty gun" by @Richard56 is one of the most disturbing papers I have ever read. http://t.co/8mdoIH7fGh Comments?
"Multiple studies have shown how if several authors are asked to review a paper, their agreement on whether it... http://t.co/TdYcVD3BOa
Another article debunking the peer review canard - http://t.co/kTASQOUkDj
Classical peer review: an empty gun http://t.co/RDb5o9H5Bs #breastcancerresearch
"The sooner we can let the 'real' #peerreview of post-publication peer review get to work the better" http://t.co/ffioY79N3c @F1000
"The sooner we can let the 'real' #peerreview of post-publication peer review get to work the better" http://t.co/ffioY79N3c @F1000
Looking for quotes & rediscovered this great article from @Richard56 about problems with pre-publication #peerreview http://t.co/ffioY79N3c
Peer review or peer pressure? RT @medskep: Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’ http://t.co/peqcDDodri 2006 and http://t.co/AgW3zmg3Lq 2010
Essential read indeed. MT @_byronmiller: Does peer review actually work? http://t.co/3Qv6apljwN #RealTimeChem #chemclub
RT @briandavidearp: The failure of #peerreview http://t.co/XtCbVRQXbO
“@medskep: Sci Journals ‘faith based’: noscience behind Peer review? http://t.co/JdbOMdWXWk 2006 and http://t.co/ObWh035XGD 2010”great read
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
RT @briandavidearp: The failure of #peerreview http://t.co/XtCbVRQXbO
RT @briandavidearp: The failure of #peerreview http://t.co/XtCbVRQXbO
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
The failure of peer review http://t.co/pRm1a7FS5D
"If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market" http://t.co/KdtIJmHjDi via @medskep
"If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market" http://t.co/KdtIJmHjDi via @medskep
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
"If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market" http://t.co/KdtIJmHjDi via @medskep
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
What's better: a paper rejected 5x and accepted once w/ hidden reviews? OR all papers accepted and openly reviewed? http://t.co/wlm7b7n7zc
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
Is peer review effective? http://t.co/EcOSl0sOrR
Scientific Journals are ‘faith based’: is there science behind Peer review? http://t.co/5ub4vXB5uq 2006 and http://t.co/OZGfNPTRIN 2010
@OfficialNIHR: 'Peer review is fundamental' | ally....useless http://t.co/qXPrQpjFOz
@eperlste Then again, that article on peer review suggests otherwise: http://t.co/ICbz48dMdk VERY depressing.
@eperlste Then again, that article on peer review suggests otherwise: http://t.co/ICbz48dMdk VERY depressing.
So far, I've found "Classical peer review: an empty gun" http://t.co/ICbz48dMdk via @joe_pickrell's excellent post http://t.co/hABTlZHQKw
So far, I've found "Classical peer review: an empty gun" http://t.co/ICbz48dMdk via @joe_pickrell's excellent post http://t.co/hABTlZHQKw
is peer review a drug? http://t.co/TAGeDVrr
@psycurious @chrisdc77 I'll just leave this here http://t.co/lDV1zQkc
.@gluejar I am afraid peer-review reliability is a chimera at ANY cost. See this scary review article http://t.co/ducuKviF
@notfor222 @docmike79 Plenty of bad studies in NEJM and Lancet, too. And peer review is not without problems http://t.co/IY9A2aVZ
@mrgunn @drugmonkeyblog peer rvw should be filter not gatekeeper; slows innovation; read @Richard56 & evidence http://t.co/KcAoWAeC #sobay
another nice piece on problems with #peerreview http://t.co/awNJahTD
Would peer review be allowed onto the market if it was a drug? - http://t.co/VH8MHN0g
@EndoMetabPub @doctorblogs @boraz Read my review of the evidence on peer review. http://t.co/cOdjM4iz
@nicoleebeale This chap certainly isn't fond of it (peer reviewing that is): http://t.co/nxGzu59F
Something of interest to ponder in how you make healthcare decisions. http://t.co/SOrwom5X