That Neuroscience Guy - Neuroscience Bites-Peer Reviews

Episode Date: March 29, 2023

One of the most important parts of science is peer review. In today's neuroscience bite, we discuss how new science is critiqued and reviewed by experts in the field. 

Hi, my name is Olof Kregolsen, and I'm a neuroscientist at the University of Victoria. And in my spare time, I'm that neuroscience guy. Welcome to another Neuroscience Bite. I've talked about this one in the past, but I was just at the Cognitive Neuroscience meeting in San Francisco, and it came up a bunch of times in discussions and things like that. And I've realized that people don't really understand what we mean when we see something is peer reviewed. So for science to be true or believable, it needs to go through a peer review process. And that literally means what it says. If I have a research study that I've just done and I write it up and I want it to get it published, I send it to

a scientific journal and then it goes out for peer review. And what that means is two or three professors from around the world will get the article and they'll review it for its scientific merit. They'll score it in a bunch of categories and say, yes, the introduction is well written. And I don't like this in the methods. I think they made a mistake and this result doesn't seem right. And basically they generate reports and those go back to the journal. And then the journal decides whether I as an author get a chance to review the paper and fix it or whether they reject it outright. But if the process goes back and forth, eventually we address all of the concerns and then

the article is accepted and the science is deemed as published or good. And that's what peer review is. This process where people independently review things and they decide whether it's worth publishing or not. And the key part is it's blind. They know who wrote the paper, but we don't know who they are. So they're able to give feedback from a completely blind point of view. And this is the process that makes science valid. And this, of course, is something that doesn't happen. I could go on Facebook right now and post, you know, I think the moon is made out doesn't happen. I could go on Facebook right now and post, I think the moon is made out of marshmallows. Well, that's just a claim, but it has no peer review. It hasn't gone to other people who would have a good solid opinion on that. And not just an opinion,

but would be experts in the area. Part of peer review is the fact that the people doing the review are experts in the area. And, you know, if three experts on the moon said, yes, it is made of marshmallows, then my claim would be substantiated. So I just wanted to say that because a lot of people always ask me, you know, how do we know the science is true or not? And the key thing is you're looking for the peer review process. So there's a quick bite on the peer review process. So if you hear that phrase, when you're looking at science, you know what it is. It means that two or three scientists have independently reviewed something and they're experts in the area and they've basically given it the thumbs up. All right, that's another neuroscience bite. Don't forget to check out

the website. You can DM me on Twitter at that neuroscience guy. Of course, subscribe to the podcast. My name is Olof Kergolsen and I'm that neuroscience guy. Of course, subscribe to the podcast. My name is Olof Kergolsen and I'm that neuroscience guy. I'll see you soon for another full episode of the podcast.