The Peer Review Process

There is a misconception that mainstream science is resistant to any new ideas which may contradict its current thinking, but nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not dogma; it’s ever-evolving as new evidence is presented and evaluated. Scientists receive greater funding, attention and accolades for bringing forth fresh ideas that challenge the status quo, yet strict criteria must be met in this pursuit.

One part of this criteria is to have your work peer-reviewed. This is a process where other scientists (peers) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. In most cases, this is performed as a ‘double-blind’ review. This means evaluators do not know the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the evaluators. The intention behind this system is to ensure evaluation is not biased. 

It’s a rigorous process, which can ruthlessly identify any flaws in the work and rejections are common. I witnessed this up close when a colleague of mine submitted a new test method to an industry-standard publication whilst working in the field of petrochemicals. It was a full two years and several revisions before his proposed new method was included in their publication (including a black and white photo of his hand!). 

The peer review process is just one part of a robust scientific method, but it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle.  

Mike H