Single correct option
Peer review is often defended as the mechanism that separates credible scientific findings from unvetted claims, yet its track record at catching fraud and serious error is decidedly mixed: numerous retracted papers had passed peer review, sometimes at reputable journals, and reviewers, who are unpaid, time-constrained and rarely given access to raw data, are structurally poorly positioned to detect deliberate fabrication. None of this means peer review is worthless — it does filter out much sloppy or poorly reasoned work — but its reputation as a reliable guarantee of scientific truth outstrips what the process can actually deliver.
- A. Peer review should be abolished since it cannot detect fraud.
- B. Peer review is useful for filtering weak work but is commonly overrated as a guarantee of truth, partly due to structural limits on reviewers.
- C. All published, peer-reviewed research is fraudulent.
- D. Reviewers are paid too little, which is the sole cause of scientific fraud.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) Peer review is useful for filtering weak work but is commonly overrated as a guarantee of truth, partly due to structural limits on reviewers.
The passage states peer review 'does filter out much sloppy or poorly reasoned work' but 'its reputation... outstrips what the process can actually deliver,' citing structural limits (unpaid, time-constrained reviewers without raw data access) — matching option B. A, C and D each overstate or misstate the passage's balanced claim.
Saved on this device. Sign in or create a free account to keep it on every device.