Talk:Peer review failure

message: I think the examples in this section are unsupported and do not belong. Some of them are errors, not failures; some are disputed cases. Classifying them this way is OR. What is necessary to support them is references to sources that explicitly discuss them as failures of peer review. This is a matter of opinion, not of 2+2=4, and we cannot use our own unsupported views on these. 
Additionally, these are unrepresentative examples--there are some more drastic ones not discussed. The solution as far as this article is concerned is to branch these to a separate article so we   can at least keep this article free of detailed controversy. 
I intend to do that split, subject to discussion here. 
How to handle the new article? Again, by making it a summary--the major cases deserve articles of their own. Some probably have them, and perhaps we can look for them and use a category. But thats for discussion on the new talk p. OK? DGG 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: peer review failures

message: with respect to the last revert. There is a claim here that the publication of Chuine paper is a demonstration of a peer review failure on the say so of one frankly trivial counter point (Keenan) and the backing of a non peer reviewed hatchet job (Carter et al) on the stern report (see here for more rebuttals: http://www.world-economics-journal.com/ ). If every paper that was ever challenged was a peer review failure, then half the literature would be here. This claim appears to have done the rounds of a various segment of the blogosphere and yet has never been picked up outside of those echo chambers. Failures of peer review would seem to me to require widespread recognition that such a failure had indeed occurred. As a counter example, I would offer Soon and Baliunas (2003) which lead to the resignation of six editors at the journal concerned (Climate research) due to the poor peer review and unjustified statements therein. Curiously enough the editor responsible for that is an author on the Carter et al paper (De Frietas). Chuine et al is neither an important paper, nor an important enough 'failure' (even assuming the Keenan analysis is justified, which is not at all clear) for it to be mentioned here. As it stands it is verging on libelous. Thus this section should be removed as i) inappropriate - the 'failure' not having been demonstrated beyond a single (and trivial) critique, ii) irrelevance, this was not an important paper (a brief communication of some anecdotal interest but of limited implication) and iii) partiality,  much worse (and clearly documented) failures are not listed (I mention one above, but there are many more, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991, Science), or Douglass et al, 2004 GRL for instance). Leaving this in is a travesty of good scholarship.
:You are quick to accuse the text as being libelous, when the text gives no indication of signaling out Chuine for criticism. The argument you give justifies it being replaced rather than removed. You are free to replace it with more important failures, but simply removing it is unproductive to creating complete discussion of the topic.--Jorfer 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: chuine + keenan

message: I have removed almost all the text in this article as it was uncited and appeared to contain original research about what constitutes peer review failure. More seriously, the article also contained possibly cherry-picked examples of peer reivew failure which involved people who are still living and active organisations. As these were uncited they were particularly unsuitable for inclusion. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be the case, but the examples in the article weren't appropriately sourced - most of the sources were simply the paper in question, and not a source which stated that the paper was flawed and had been published as a result of peer review failure occuring. This article also needs sources to support its definitition of a peer review failure (including the common causes of failures). --Nick Dowling 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of most of the article's text

message: In the peer review article, it is explained that some see the peer review process as a form of censorship.  Is this also called a p-r failure? Michelle Kuiper (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  two kinds of failure?? 

message: This seems a very weak article with no mention of any actual examples of a peer review failure.
An article that has often been considered a peer review failure by other authors and was challenged by letters in print shortly after publication is 
Temple, Stanley A. (1977): Plant-animal mutualism: coevolution with Dodo leads to near extinction of plant. Science 197(4306): 885-886. 
Other articles have criticized it for the kind of fundamental flaws that should have been noticed by reviewers, including the lack of a control treatment and failure to cite basic literature on seed germination of the plant that contradicted the article's conclusion. 
The article on Tambalacoque discusses the case. Plantguy (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need one or more examples