Some research on research- Peer-review efficacy:
Smith, R. (2006).
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
Journal of the royal society of medicine,
99(4), 178-182.
“We surveyed several thousand early- and mid-career scientists, who are based in the United States and funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and asked them to report their own behaviours. Our findings reveal a range of questionable practices that are striking in their breadth and prevalence (Table 1). This is the first time such behaviours have been analysed quantitatively, so we cannot know whether the current situation has always been the case or whether the challenges of doing science today create new stresses. Nevertheless, our evidence suggests that mundane 'regular' misbehaviours present greater threats to the scientific enterprise than those caused by high-profile misconduct cases such as fraud.”
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly.
Nature,
435(7043), 737-738.
“A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.”
Fanelli, D. (2009).
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
PloS one,
4(5), e5738.
"peer review is not one but many different systems, and it is changing all the time as it reflects social norms and expectations. Nor is it the objective process people would like it to be. It is in fact, as contributors to this book explain, a process with so many flaws that it is only the lack of an obvious alternative that keeps the process going. At its best, it provides prompt, detailed, constructive and well-founded criticism, to the benefit of researchers and consumers of research. At its worst, it is expensive, slow, subjective and biased, open to abuse, patchy at detecting important methodological defects, and almost useless at detecting fraud or misconduct."
Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (2003).
Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd Ed.). BMJ Books.
“Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain”
Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review.
JAMA,
287(21), 2784-2786.
“In neither of the journals that we studied was agreement between independent reviewers on whether manuscripts should be published, or their priority for publication, convincingly greater than that which would have been expected by chance alone.”
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience.
Brain,
123(9), 1964-1969.
