Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

Do peer reviews always have good results?

Good question. The concept or process of “peer review,” in regard to the appearance of an article or research report in a recognized scientific journal, is not always understood.

First, what’s a “peer?” A peer is an accomplished science expert having knowledge and experience in a particular field or subject, equal to or better than the author(s) of a paper.

What, then, is “peer review?”

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing, is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible information source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Simply, peer review is the process by which respected scientific journals decide which articles and research reports they will publish. In academia, especially science, it really is “publish or perish.” A scientist’s reputation is generally determined by the number and quality of science journal articles he or she has published. So, science journals get a large number of article submissions. But they publish only a fraction. They publish only the most important and significant and accurate research reports.

So, each journal has a determined list of reviewers, each with great expertise and experience in the journal’s areas of interest. The article submissions are sent out to the reviewers, who scrutinize the submitted articles, then report back to the journal editor, with an up or down recommendation.

I have scrutinized Dr. Dorglemyer’s paper on his research on the ability of walnut consumption to prevent Alzheimer’s disease. I recommend that we reject the paper, as it has a number of flaws. The sample sizes were not adequate, and the chemical constituents of walnuts that might moderate the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s were not described. Worse, the mechanisms of action that produced the results he stated were not described or validated. Not worthy of publication in our journal.

Now, on the other hand, I found the blarcamesine paper to be both valid and important. We should publish it.”