The myth of peer review

1. Letter. Submitted to MDedge Psychiatry MDedge.com/Psychiatry ■ 15 ■ December 2019 The myth of peer review I AM WRITING to draw attention to what ended up as the final column written for Clinical Psychiatry News by the late Dr. Carl C. Bell. Dr. Bell’s article was on a topic about which he wrote prolifically, particularly in recent years (“Fetal alcohol exposure overlooked again? New study on large youth sample is well done – with a glaring exception,” Clinical Psychiatry News, August 2019, p. 6). In the commentary, Dr. Bell drew attention to research papers that did not control for fetal alcohol exposure. Such an omission, at the very least, raises doubts about the conclusions of the papers quoted. The issue becomes even more apparent in cases in which 1) the paper is a retrospective meta- analysis and 2) the papers analyzed have themselves not controlled for prenatal alcohol. Those kinds of omissions are in conflict with the stated aims of the peer review process as outlined by publishers such as Wiley in: “Spotting Potential Major Flaws: Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study.” However, the problem extends much further than the few papers quoted in Dr. Bell’s commentary. Indeed, this problem is one of enormous proportions and over many years will have gross economical and professional implications. Barry Stanley, MBChB Vernon, B.C.

2. The evidence seems to to bang themselves around imitating big guys seems reasonably safe. At least as safe as what kids used to do to each other before we adults invented television and video games.