They really don't

peer review in science is mainly driven by people who are competing. They're actively looking to test (to destruction) their peers' work.

The biggest problem that scientists face is usually that they concentrate on the anomalous results and exceptions. Which means that the papers which are published are about the fringes (of scientific interest), but which actually don't reflect the broader picture and context in which they're working.

"99.9% of the time this happens - so we're looking at exploring that 0.1%"

this, in turn, is often the root cause of newspaper articles titled "scientists say!!!!" as those papers are not designed to be transposed to the newsfeed, and the journalists, even if they are skilled and experienced, rarely have the time to pick out the pertinent info.

(I went on a communication workshop run by the science editor of The Times - eye opening the pressures reporters are under just to turn things around)

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Jan 18, 11:24:17