Whether we like it or not, research is already, easily and increasingly, published outside of journals, and so are reviews. Reforming peer review, therefore, should mean working with the way science is shared in public, not ignoring it.

Surely peer-review should have picked up the Surgisphere fraud? You think? The same article quoted Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet, where the Surgisphere papers were published. He had this to say in his defence:

‘... the peer review process is not designed to capture research misconduct.’

To be honest I don’t feel this is the most... See more

The paper you just read could never be published in a scientific journal. The studies themselves are just as good as the ones Ethan and I have published in fancyjournals, but writing about science this way is verboten.

For instance, in a journal you’re not allowed to say things like “we don’t know why this happens.” You’re not allowed to admit that... See more