“About 1 In 3 Economics Studies Don’t Replicate”

Ummmm! Snake oil! — Ends world poverty, relieves sorrow, guarantees business success, writes excellent novels, and perpetuates true love! (Wikimedia Commons)

I believe in the academic peer review process. I think it very useful to both authors and editors.

I’ve undergone scholarly peer review many times myself. Moreover, the two Mormon-related journals with which I’ve been principally connected have used the same peer review processes that are employed in academia generally. We replicated the methods with which we’re familiar. (The common accusation in some circles that we don’t use peer review is, like much else that critics have said about both the FARMS Review and Interpreter, both baseless and false, not to mention malicious.)

But peer review isn’t magical, it isn’t perfect, and — unlike Dr. Smith’s Miracle Elixir and Clark Stanley’s Snake Oil Liniment — it won’t cure all ills. It’s a helpful tool, but it’s just a tool.

And, more and more, scholars and scientists are recognizing how much questionable material — sometimes sheer junk — clears peer review:

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/04/08/about_1_in_3_economics_studies_dont_replicate_109594.html

“About 1 in 3 Economics Studies Don’t Replicate”