Peer-review: Let’s make it a History

Image by Atsutaka Odaira

According to Elsevier, a famous medical journal from 1880, peer-review is a “system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.” Onikle does not believe this is entirely true.

For example, in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic, an interesting article was published on American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research. This new research claimed that eating a Pokémon called Zubat (which resembles a bat) is the reason why COVID-19 started. To paraphrase what happened to people who are not part of Pokémon universe, in this paper the cause of international pandemic by COVID-19 was attributed to a fictional anime character and was successfully published in the earlier mentioned peer-reviewed journal. The author of the paper writes, “The journals that accepted my papers are predatory. They appear legitimate, but practice no peer review, no editing, not even a reality check.

Such journals are no different from any other informal websites such as blog or Facebook containing “scientific knowledge” but clear difference is that they are charging a hefty fee to us. What is the point of paying money for journals that do not validate (we talked more about this on our last post) the work? Onikle believe there should be no single “superior” entity that evaluates a scientific research. “Review” should be done by the collective. Reviewing a paper is subjective matter and therefore by delegating the public to evaluate a research it will lead to much fair process. This is possible through Onikle as we provide preprint platform where you can discuss.

Another reason many journals cite why they continue such a poor process is because of the history. First of all, science as an application is all about changing and improving our current methods and that is why we have much more efficient society than a century ago. This should be no exception with peer-review too. It has continuously shown to be a failure, but science world persists with the broken method. Now let’s look at their original claim: they say it has 350yrs of history but in our previous post we found out that major journals did not adopt peer-review system until the end of World War II. Even if a journal had used peer-review prior to World War II, it was not quite in the form we see in today. Not so historical as they say right?

Onikle believes it can bring the much-needed change to the science world. We need to stop journals and the peer-review system to dictate how science should look. Science is not always about fancy titles and cover of journal. It is about trial and error. Journals are forcing to cut all errors in expense of faulty science. Onikle will bring the power of deciding which research is worthy or not back to the people .

If you are interested in our service, please register your email address in the following link to get an early access and test our All-new preprint platform that provides stress-free search experience with AI engine.

Written by Wanonno Iqtyider

By accelerating the distribution of papers and completing full open access to them, we support everyone who is approaching an uncertain future.