In Media, Rest Day/Theory

January 12, 2015

PDF Article

Peer review is held up as the gold standard of legitimacy in academic publishing, but Lon Kilgore says the system has inherent flaws and isn’t as foolproof as journals would have you believe.

As any reader of CrossFit.com and The Russells blog can attest, exercise-science journals seem to be suffering from compromised systems of publication and ethics.

As scientists, clinicians and practitioners rely on the information contained within journals to provide factual basis for their experimental, therapeutic and training activities, a corrupted system has dire effects on every aspect of the exercise, fitness and sport industries. This is why it is absolutely important to publicly challenge journal editors, the peer-review process and even individual researchers when warranted. We must safeguard our professional livelihoods by ensuring we are operating on fact rather than misrepresented or fabricated data.

A number of processes in academic publishing are intended to ensure the quality and accuracy of manuscripts in publication. Let’s take a look at these systems, their components and their gatekeepers as they are all purported pillars of academic credibility.

Free Download

Comment

3 Comments on “Peering Through the Academic Blinds”

1

wrote …

Great article! I'm left wondering, what changes would you recommend to this system to improve it?

2

wrote …

Dear Sir,
I have been recently been introduced to CrossFit by a colleague and stumbled across the Journal and your article today.

Can I ask if there is an appendix I missed that provides a Harvard/modified Harvard reference list? There appears to be a green hyperlink "recent study" but this is not live on iPad/iPhone. If the web links to papers are via PubMed then might I suggest a "Last Accessed" URL would be appropriate at the end of the paper?
I would be very interested to read the paper that cites a 2% fabrication rate.
Many thanks,
Owen

3

wrote …

Hi, Owen.

Thanks for the comment. You can access the article you mentioned here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Cheers!

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)