Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
What did that article say to you?
To me, it raised the possibility that the "peers" doing the peer reviews might be well-funded researchers or researchers working for well-funded companies and universities. Who should a peer reviewer be, someone with no working relationship to the field they are reviewing or someone currently active in the field? Those currently active in the field are funded and some of that funding comes from affected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.
Perhaps a further study will show a bias by those receiving large funding amounts. This article does not mention anything like that.
|
The article said to me there is a huge conflict of interest. It was summarized in the first paragraph. Big Pharma shouldn't be paying anybody for reviewing papers that involve pharma.
It's like when the Sugar Council funds a study on sugar. Is that likely to be impartial?
So yes, if a paper is going to be peer reviewed, it should be by a completely impartial third party, not someone being paid by interested parties with deep pockets. That should go without saying.