How reliable are peer reviewed scientific articles? I'm asking this question because someone on http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=25802864&postcount=913" claims that you can pick who reviews your article so you're not really getting an objective point of view. This was in a global warming debate thread.
Speaking of the peer review, and anyone who has published will know about this...everytime you submit a paper, they ask you for a preferred list of reviewers and ask you who you would like to exclude. This is pretty much the process of every peer review journal! So for anyone to think it is a pure art has never published!!! I am not saying it is horrible, but it is hardly objective anymore.
Interestingly, I just submitted a paper last week to a journal with an impact factor over 5. I received an email saying I had to provide 4 reviewers. It has always been optional on most journals I have submitted to but this was the first time I had to pick my own reviewers...and it is perhaps the most well known journal in the biopharmaceutical industry. So that is peer review....choose your reviewers. One will be a friend of a co-author who asked him to review an article last year. Two others will work at the same company as another co-author (she took another position before the manuscript was written). I am going to ask my director for a fourth...more than likely...it will be someone we do a lot of business with and understands the science, but also a friend of my director. All four reviewers will be experts in their respective field, but they will also have an association with our company.
I really do laugh when people think peer review is truly some altruistic and objective method!!!
Last edited by a moderator: