Time: 11:30 a.m. -1:00 p.m.
Location: Dental Sciences Building, Room D7-11
Peer review has historically been criticized for its inequities and failure to provide a rationale explanation for its failures. Over the years there have been numerous panels, commissions, and committees charged with coming up with a different system or modifying the existing system (see attached). It seems that criticizing what we have has been a much easier task than coming up with something better. It is now 2014 and we have a system of peer review that many still believe is less than ideal, continues to frustrate, and has little chance of changing. We don’t often discuss the mechanics of science in Journal Club so this week we will consider not only the peer review system but also what is necessary to ensure that we publish valid results with scientific credibility (see attached). This is not going to be your normal journal club so come prepared to express your feelings, leave frustrated, liberated, and probably with thoughts that nothing will change in the future. If nothing else it will be a cathartic exercise and a chance to share your worst peer review stories with everyone. (mice mislead, NIH Eyes Sweeping Reform of Peer Review, peer review)