3 ms·
On top of that, peer review is more advisory than adversarial: it’s meant to catch honest mistakes and point out possible interpretations that the authors might
by mattkrause 6y ago
On top of that, peer review is more advisory than adversarial: it’s meant to catch honest mistakes and point out possible interpretations that the authors might have missed.
Catching out-and-out fraud, a la Wakefield, is way beyond the reviewers’ remit.
- coliveira 6y agoEvery journal in the world is like this. Why you're raising questions about Lancet when all scientific journals operate the same way? There is no such thing as American science or Russian science, it is all the same.
- mattkrause 6y agoI agree! I was just trying to say that it's unfair to tar them with Wakefield's nonsense.