A scientific article that has not been reviewed by peers is worth “almost” the same as an article published in a prestigious journal, and therefore previously reviewed by a committee of experts, answers Vincent Larivière, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Transformations of Scholarly Communication.
A study in prepublication is only in a “transitional status”, he recalls. “Almost all” of the articles end up appearing in a journal at some point, and “the change is minor in 80% of the cases”.
The pandemic has obviously exacerbated the importance of these unverified articles. Very often, for the past two years, “urgency has taken precedence over certainty,” remarks Vincent Larivière. “If we had followed the usual mechanics, we would start to notice the Omicron variant…”
Because normally, the fastest peer reviews take one to two weeks, he says. Those that are “more civilized” last from one to two months. “The standard is one year. »
This seal is also not what validates a hypothesis, but simply “one filter among many others” to guarantee the integrity of the research. “A peer-reviewed scientific manuscript is not that different from a manuscript read by another expert in the field. They are not people from above with a pseudo-divine or omniscient gaze. It’s just other researchers, experts in the field giving their opinion. »
There is the reputation of the researcher which weighs in the balance. “In science, what is most valuable is its name. We don’t want his name on a rag, ”says the professor attached to the University of Montreal.
“The team filter” also plays a role, because studies in medicine often mobilize more than fifteen researchers, which reduces the risks of “bad science”.
The Problem of Verified Articles
However, these filters must work before the conclusions of a study are relayed in the media or dictate a government rule. “The problem with preprints is less the use that researchers make of them than that of public decision-makers,” says the full professor at the University of Montreal.
The greatest controversies around scientific rigor come mainly from articles published in serious journals. Articles published in the credible The Lancet, or even the analyzes of Dr. Raoult on hydroxychloroquine, were thus disavowed after their publication, not without having blurred the common knowledge around the sciences of COVID-19.
Not to mention experts in economics, sociology or other fields who have had “their COVID-19 moment” and who have written articles on the pandemic, going beyond their field of expertise and committing a fault of “scientific imperialism “, according to him.
About 1 article in 2000 is withdrawn after publication. “The pandemic has shown again that peer review was fallible, notes Vincent Larivière. It is not what turns a false scientific statement into a true statement. »
This text is taken from our newsletter “Coronavirus mail” of February 7, 2022. To subscribe, click here.