Something rotten at the core of science?
Something rotten at the core of science?
复制标题
科学的核心有什么腐烂的东西吗？
DOI：
10.1016/s0165-6147(00)01618-7
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
13.8
通讯作者：
D. Horrobin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Horrobin
美国最高法院最近一直在努力解决科学证据的可接受性和可靠性问题。在对多伯特诉梅雷尔·道一案的判决中，法院试图为美国法官在听取科学专家意见时制定遵循的准则。研究结果是否发表在同行评审期刊上提供了一个重要标准。但法院强调，同行评审有时可能存在缺陷，因此这一标准并不是有效性或其他方面的明确证据。最近对同行评审的一项分析发现，评审者的建议之间缺乏令人震惊的相关性，从而加剧了这一争议。
The US Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of the acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement in the case of Daubert versus Merrell Dow, the Court attempted to set guidelines for US judges to follow when listening to scientific experts. Whether or not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided one important criterion. But in a key caveat, the Court emphasized that peer review might sometimes be flawed and therefore this criterion was not unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of peer review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of correlation between reviewers' recommendations.