Commentary to part X

Editorial and review processes are open to all the ethical weaknesses of human nature: favoritism, bias, controversy, misrepresentation, and motivated disagreement. Nevertheless, peer review is our best option for endorsing scientific merit and allocating prestigious journal space. The protections of blind-preferably double-blind-review are many. We are less likely to be influenced by loyalty and politics. We have more credibility with the public. We can hope the process is fairer than publishing everything, or the decision of a single gatekeeper, or a quid pro quo mutual backscratching system. Peer review actually does well, assessed against alternative standards. An issue generating considerable controversy is whether scientists can remain objective and unbiased when accepting money from industry. Large amounts of money change hands between industry and scientists, and this practice has been challenged in prominent articles both in the profession and the press.