La evaluación por pares y la publicación: lecciones para abogados

• Autores: Susan Haack
• Localización: Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, ISSN-e 2386-4702, ISSN 0214-8676, Nº 38, 2015, págs. 15-40
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.14198/doxa2015.38.01
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Peer Review and Publication: Lessons for Lawyers
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen
  • español

    La Corte Suprema estadounidense en el caso Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. especificó como un posible criterio a tomar en consideración por los jueces para decidir la admisibilidad de las pruebas científicas la revisión por pares y la publicación de trabajos sobre la teoría o técnica subyacente al elemento de prueba en cuestión. En este trabajo se abordan algunos de los problemas que los actuales sistemas de revisión por pares y publicación enfrentan y que permiten cuestionar la utilidad del criterio si el objetivo de los tribunales es valorar la calidad de la información científica.

  • English

    In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States said that a pertinent consideration in order to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. This work analyses some of the problems faced by the current systems of peer review and publication, which also call into question their use as an indicia of the reliability of scientific information.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Altman, L. K., 2006: «For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap», en New York Times, May 2, F1.
  • Armstrong, D., 2006: «Bitter Pill: How the New England Journal of Medicine Missed Warning Signs in Vioxx-Medical Weekly Waited Years to Report...
  • Bailar, J. C., 1991: «Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity, and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review», en Behavioral and Brain Sciences,...
  • Begley, S., 2006: «Science Journals Artfully Try to Boost Their Rankings», en Wall Street Journal, June 5, B1, B8.
  • Bero, L. et al., 1992: «The Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals», en New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 1135-1140.
  • Bombadier, C. et al., 2000: «Comparison of Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Rofecoxib and Naproxen in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis»,...
  • Brent, R. L., 1995: «Bendectin: Review of the Medical Literature of a Comprehensively Studied Human Nonteratogen and the Most Prevalent Tortogen-Litigen»,...
  • Brent, R. L., 1997: «Litigation-Produced Pain, Disease, and Suffering: An Experience with Congenital Malformation Lawsuit», en Teratology,...
  • Bresalier, R. S. et al., 2005: «Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial», en New England...
  • Bryant, D. et al., 2006: «How Many Patients? How Many Limbs? Analysis of Patients or Limbs in the Orthopedic Literature: A Systematic Review»,...
  • Bridgman, P., 1933: «The Struggle for Intellectual Integrity», en P. Bridgman, 1995: Reflections of a Physicist, New York: Philosophical Library,...
  • Burnham, J. C., 1990: «The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.
  • Carey, B., 2006: «Researcher Pulls his Name from Paper on Prayer and Fertility», en New York Times, December 4, A15.
  • Chan, A. W. et al., 2004: «Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials», en Journal of the American Medical...
  • Chan, E. J., 1995: «The “Brave New World” of Daubert: True Peer Review, Editorial Peer Review, and Scientific Validity», en NYU Law Review,...
  • Couzin, J., y Unger, K., 2006: «Cleaning up the Paper Trail», en Science, 312, 38-43.
  • Editorial, 1983: «Is Science Really a Pack of Lies?», en Nature, 303, 361.
  • Flamm, B., 2004: «The Columbia University “Miracle” Study: Flawed and Fraud», en Skeptical Inquirer, 28, 25-31.
  • Friedman, P- J., 1990: «Correcting the Literature Following Fraudulent Publication», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263,...
  • García-Berthou, E., y Alcaraz, C., 2004: «Incongruence between Test Statistics and P Values in Medical Papers», en BMS Medical Research Methodology,...
  • Gardner, M. J., y Bond, J., 1990: «An Exploratory Study of Statistical Assessment of Papers Published in The British Medical Journal», en...
  • Gravitz, L., 2006: «Biology’s Image Problem», en Rockefeller University Scientist, 1, núm. 1, 10-12.
  • Haack, S., 2003: Defending Science-Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Haack, S., 2008: «What’s Wrong with Litigation-Driven Science?», en Seton Hall Law Review, 38, núm. 3, 1053-1083. Reimpreso en S. Haack, 2014:...
  • Haller, Ch., y Benowitz, N. L., 2000: «Adverse Cardiovascular and Central Nervous System Events Associated with Dietary Supplements Containing...
  • Henderson, D., 2005: «Journal Says Vioxx Woes Suppressed. Merck Blamed: Correction Sought», en Boston Globe, 9 de diciembre.
  • Horrobin, D. F., 1990: «The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation», en Journal of the American Medical Association,...
  • Horton, R., 2006: «Expression of Concern: Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Oral Cancer», en Lancet, 367.
  • Ionnadis, J. P. A., 2005: «Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research», en Journal of the American Medical...
  • Judson, H. F., 1994: «Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association,...
  • Kronick, D. A., 1990: «Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1321-1322.
  • Lock, S., 1985: A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
  • Lock, S., y Smith, J., 1990: «What Do Peer Reviewers Do?», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1341-1343.
  • Martinson, B. C. et al., 2005: «Scientists Behaving Badly», en Nature, 435, 737-738.
  • Maxwell, S. R. J., y Webb, D. J., 2005: «Cox-2 Selective Inhibitors-Important Lessons Learned», en Lancet, 365, 449-451.
  • McCutchen, Ch. W., 1991: «Peer Review: Treacherous Servant, Disastrous Master», en Technology Review, 94, 28-51.
  • Neville, J. A. et al., 2006: «Errors in the Archives of Dermatology and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology from January through...
  • Osmond, D. H., 1983: «Malice’s Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review», en Journal of Neurobiology, 14, núm. 2, 95-112.
  • Pfeiffer, M. P., y Snodgrass, G. L., 1990: «The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature», en Journal of the American Medical...
  • Polanyi, M., 1946: Science, Faith, and Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Posner, R. A., 2004: «Against the Law Reviews», en Legal Affairs, 57-58.
  • Rennie, D., 1986: «Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 256, 2391-2392.
  • Rennie, D., 2003: «Editorial Peer Review: Its Development and Rationale», en F. Godlee y T. Jefferson (eds.): Peer Review in Health Sciences,...
  • Smith, R., 1997: «Peer Review: Reform or Revolution?», en British Medical Journal, 315, 759-760.
  • Sox, H. C., y Rennie, D., 2006: «Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case», en Annals...
  • Sudbø, J. et al., 2005: «Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Oral Cancer: A Nested Case-Control Study», en Lancet, 366,...
  • Sun, M., 1989: «Peer Review Comes under Peer Review», en Science, 224, 910-912.
  • Vail, A., y Gardener, E., 2003: «Common Statistical Errors in the Design and Analysis of Subfertility Trials», en Human Reproduction, 18,...
  • Wade, N., y Sang-Hun, Ch., 2006: «Human Cloning Was All Faked, Koreans Report», en New York Times, January 10, A1.
  • Weller, A. C., 1990: «Editorial Peer Review in U.S. Medical Journals», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1344-1345.
  • Won Tesoriero, H., 2007: «Vioxx Study Correction May Add Pressure to Merck’s Defense», en Wall Street Journal, June 27, A2.
  • Wysocki, B. Jr., 2005: «Scholarly Journals’ Premier Status is Diluted by Web», en Wall Street Journal, May 23, A1, A8.
  • Yankauer, A., 1990: «Who Are the Peer Reviewers and How Much Do They Review?», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1338-1340.
  • Ziman, J. M., 1968: Public Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ziman, J. M., 1969: «Information, Communication, Knowledge», en Nature, 318-324.
  • Zuckerman, H., y Merton, R. K., 1971: «Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalism, Structure, and Functions of the Referee System»,...