> How many Nature papers are not reproducible? To call out a new bunch of people who are trying something different because people are afraid they’ll fail is sort of hypocritical given that we don’t really check whether anybody else’s results are correct, either.
Peer review is more about politics then reproducibility. Reproducibility is really important, but Nature doesn't seem to agree.
Peer review is completely flawed. Until it's made more transparent, like at F1000, it's going to continue that way.
Not being a negative Nancy here, but I've been on both sides of the fence (reviewed and had grants/papers reviewed) and it isn't an efficient system. Much like many other things in science, it's an antiquated process that needs to be overhauled to get back to it's "roots".
Peer review should be open, scientists shouldn't be allowed to choose who reviews/doesn't review their papers, and the process by which selection is done needs to be more rigorous.
My suggestion, open it up to everyone in the field and make sure that the reviewers are identified. Anonymous peer review has the same effect that anonymous posting on internet forums has, people become e-thugs or just say things that they shouldn't ever say because they know the reader doesn't know who they are.
This sounds like it doesn't happen, but you would be surprised that the stuff that happens behind closed doors. Scientists are people, people are flawed (which is fine), but that shouldn't hold back scientific discoveries.
Then again, you have the problem that negative results are rarely published. Many groups may repeat the same thing over and over, not realizing that many other groups have confirmed a negative result.
(Actually I think I saw a post here about a journal that aims to adress this problem).