I attended a science online event a few weeks ago about
research articles in the news but not reviewed. Most of the discussions were
focused on how we perceive peer-reviewed articles, and those that are not
reviewed. Both scientists and science writers at this event seemed to think
presenting research without peer review was beneficial for some fields of
research and more risky for other fields.
As a medical researcher I was unaware that physicists often present
their work on the website arXiv.org, without peer review. To me, this seems a
healthy way to present and share science. Although I was told many of these
articles eventually go on to peer review, I was still impressed how openly and
fearlessly these researchers shared their new data.
One of the writers at this event insinuated that in the medical
or health-related fields of research you have to be more careful about what you
publish or report. I suppose unconfirmed or preliminary research may inspire some
people to treat themselves with something or some technique that could have
detrimental effects on their health. Of course scientists or even writers may
not want to be involved in such liability risks.
However, this kind of problem is not as likely to occur in
the field of physics or mathematics. Some of the scientists at the event
suggested that the legitimacy of physics research is easier to assess and is
more open to sharing than other fields because physics and math work can often
be validated with a piece of paper and pencil, or calculator. Even though I am
not a physicist, I am not sure I entirely agree. Could people easily validate
that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light just with a pencil and paper?
Perhaps there is a lot of work generated in physics that can
be easily checked out on paper and this encourages a more open scientific
environment in general where people share their ideas regardless of how
difficult it is to verify the results of the research. On the other hand, it
may be that peer review seems more necessary in fields like medical research
because understanding research papers of this nature require a great deal of
experience at the lab bench, as well as understanding the nature of various animal
models or organisms and experience with very specific techniques that require
specific instrumentation.
In the end, I wish that all scientists could share their
ideas openly and willingly give each other feedback. I think this would improve
the quality of science and make it less of a rat race. Unfortunately, it seems
that too many scientists, especially medical researchers, focus more on getting
their data out before their competitor, rather than focusing on working
together to find a solution to a problem.
