select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
75% of the British public have no idea what ‘peer review in scientific publications’ means, or can’t define it correctly according to a new MORI poll commissioned by the Science Media Centre and Nature.
However the survey also shows that the vast majority (71%) of the public favour replication or the kind of scrutiny provided by peer review – the process by which scientists review and criticize each others’ work before they make it public.
When asked what scientists whose research raises concerns about the possible risks to human health and safety should do, 30% opted for something along the lines of peer review. 41% want an even more rigorous system where results are replicated by other scientists and results confirmed before going public.
Fewer than one in ten people believe that scientists whose findings had raised concerns about possible risks to human health and safety should issue these straight to the media.
The director of the Science Media Centre, and other people involved in the dissemination of scientific research findings or the canvassing of public opinion, commented on this story.
Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, said:
“This poll strengthens our appeal to the scientific community to talk more about the way science works. At a time when people are bombarded with information about the risks of everything from MMR to GM crops to mobile phones, peer review could be one way of navigating the waters. It’s surely time for scientists to share their secret – that there is a process relied on by scientists to sort out the wheat from the chaff.”
Philip Campbell, Editor of Nature, said:
“While there are plenty of valid criticisms of peer review within science, it remains the case that no scientist would give a research finding much credence unless it’s been peer reviewed. On emotive issues around our health it is even more important to use this quality control mechanism and the public seem to be saying that if neither peer review nor replication existed, they would want us to create something along the same lines. The public also seems to be giving the thumbs down to scientists who bypass peer review and go straight to the media with their concerns.”
Michele Corrado, Head of Medicine and Science Research at MORI, said:
“These results demonstrate that, in the wake of much contention about science, the public favours validation and scrutiny of scientific research results over direct release to the media. This clearly indicates a vote of support for some form of quality control mechanism. Furthermore, people who can correctly define what peer review means, and one assumes therefore have an understanding of it, more often favour replication and scrutiny by scientists.”
“The survey was commissioned by the Science Media Centre to coincide with the publication of its new guide for scientists, Communicating Peer review in a Soundbite. The guide, compiled by scientists and journalists, is aimed at encouraging scientists to use the opportunities provided by media interviews on hot topics to explain exactly what peer review is.”