Narrated by David Drew. Fourth episode in the Misconception series on the EU Model—with a focus on how the peer review system generally escapes scrutiny and why it’s portrayed as an infallible tool for scientific integrity—which is exasperating on several levels.
First, senior academics and scientists who review scientific papers are typically well-established in their field—which is essential for evaluation—but can lead to accusations of bias and/or cognitive dissonance.
Second, peer review “referees” are anonymous—protection from external influence, which is good—but favored theories are touted while maverick ideas are easily dissented without consequence.
Third, a peer-reviewed paper signifies it’s been scrutinized and passed muster as acceptable science, but if conflicting conclusions arise from other peer-reviewed work—it is often willfully ignored.
Author and independent researcher David Drew analyzes the role of peer review and wonders how can we trust peer-reviewed science when, all too often, it follows the money.
