Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugchief
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.
|
The article did not say they were being paid to reviewing papers. That article said that those reviewing papers had received payment. Big difference.
I think you are going to have to consider the quality of those you desire to perform the peer reviews. If they are not involved with research or development in the particular field, or are not established enough to have grants, salaries, or other funding, then are they truly qualified to review that type of paper?
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY
Randallstown, MD
Yakima, WA
Stevensville, MD
Village of Hillsborough
|