claim: Peer review process was corrupted
evidences.evidence_id: Peer review:44
evidences.article: Peer review
evidences.evidence: Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and even years to publish and the process wastes researchers' time.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Peer review:58
evidences.article: Peer review
evidences.evidence: Multiple examples across several areas of science find that scientists elevated the importance of peer review for research that was questionable or corrupted.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS NOT_ENOUGH_INFO
evidences.evidence_id: Peer review:61
evidences.article: Peer review
evidences.evidence: At times, peer review has been exposed as a process that was orchestrated for a preconceived outcome.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS SUPPORTS
evidences.evidence_id: Peer review:68
evidences.article: Peer review
evidences.evidence: In 2010, the US Senate Finance Committee released a report that found this practice was widespread, that it corrupted the scientific literature and increased prescription rates.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS NOT_ENOUGH_INFO
evidences.evidence_id: Peer review:84
evidences.article: Peer review
evidences.evidence: If anything, the current peer review process and academic system could penalize, or at least fail to incentivize, such integrity.
evidences.votes: SUPPORTS NOT_ENOUGH_INFO