Peer reviewers are supposed to be experts in their fields, competent enough at least to spot methodological errors, wayward conclusions and implausible findings. But checking references? Apparently, not so much.
Such discussions can, and the original Retraction Watch story did, prompt cries of whether it is fair/reasonable to give unpaid peer reviewers another job? A reasonable response might be: Who else is better placed? A lot more of us with the knowledge need to participate in peer review and we need frameworks that celebrate good practice.
The paper, “Medical students’ perception of their education and training to cope with future market trends,” appeared in March in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, a Dove Press title. The author was Mohamed Abdelrahman Mohamed Iesa, a physiologist at Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia.
