Go back

Evidence-based peer review can make research more robust

Image: Graphicsciz [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Some tools, such as author blinding, seem to reduce retractions, while others are associated with more, say Serge Horbach and Willem Halffman.

Concerns about the reliability of the scientific literature have been sparked by biomedical researchers finding that a worrying proportion of published articles contain flaws, are not reproducible or are outright fraudulent. This may have several consequences, including sending research down fruitless avenues, wasting valuable resources, skewing meta-analyses, or building policy or treatments on insecure grounds. It may even harm public trust in science and threaten funding.

This article is only available to Research Professional News subscribers. If you are a subscriber you can read the article in full on researchprofessional.com

Pivot-RP users can log in and view the article via this link.