trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Peer review improves the reliability of published scientific research.

the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
Recorded sources
5 sources for · 3 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that peer review improves the reliability of published scientific research?

Partly. Several sources assert that peer review maintains quality standards and can improve reliability of specific outputs such as narrative reviews or grant ratings, while other sources question whether peer review actually works and note that reviewer decisions are driven by impressive results rather than study validity. No retrieved item directly measures whether peer review improves the reliability of published scientific research overall.

Verdict: CONTESTED PARTIAL · 5 sources for, 3 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 5
Peer review
Get citation
Peer review. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Evidence against · 3
Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?
1999
Get citation
Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen?. (1999). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.44

See more details
More for · 4
Reliability of Peer Reviews.
1981
Get citation
E., M. L. & Sally, M. (1981). Reliability of Peer Reviews.. eric.ed.gov. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ253933

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews
2016
Get citation
Byrne, J. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide -
Get citation
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide - PMC Lock. (n.d.). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology
2023
Get citation
Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology. (2023). academic.oup.com. https://academic.oup.com/jeb/article-pdf/36/10/1347/56275939/jeb14230.pdf

More against · 2
A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants
2010
Get citation
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. (2010). A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014331

Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
2016
Get citation
Button, K., Bal, L., Clark, A., & Shipley, T. (2016). Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work