Cracking Open the Scientific Process

The New York Times has a compelling article in today's (January 16, 2012) issue about the process of medical and scientific journals. This is not to dismiss the progress that was done under the peer-review process, but, and this is important, it can also delay progress in an environment when we see instantaneous sharing, for example, via social media channels. Some are arguing the process has stifled the advancement of cure-related science. One excellent example is the Brehm Coalition [], which has made a number of stunning advances in type 1 diabetes research in a remarkably short timeframe. Perhaps advancing diabetes cure-related research to Science 2.0 model can help to accelerate the process?!

What does anyone else think about this? Please, I'd love to hear people's thoughts!

The peer review process is not what it's cracked up to be, simply because the editor may have a bias in favor of one view or another. This bias can in turn influence the choice of the reviewer. Bottom line it can be difficult for an idea that goes against the conventional wisdom to get a fair hearing.

I find it fascinating that a new paradigm has emerged from the world of social media.

True, and a number of medical/scientific journals have abysmal conflicts-of-interest policies and have suffered embarrassing issues as a result (Journal of American Medicine, anyone?)