Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (19 de marzo de 2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research". JAMA289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438.. ("There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print".)
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (19 de marzo de 2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research". JAMA289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438.. ("There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print".)
mja.com.au
Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA172 (4): 148–9. PMID10772580.. ("The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong".)
nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA172 (4): 148–9. PMID10772580.. ("The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong".)
