La evaluación por pares y la publicación: lecciones para abogados

Autores/as

  • Susan Haack

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2015.38.01

Palabras clave:

Evaluación por pares, Publicaciones, Pruebas científicas, Fiabilidad de la prueba pericial

Resumen

La Corte Suprema estadounidense en el caso Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. especificó como un posible criterio a tomar en consideración por los jueces para decidir la admisibilidad de las pruebas científicas la revisión por pares y la publicación de trabajos sobre la teoría o técnica subyacente al elemento de prueba en cuestión. En este trabajo se abordan algunos de los problemas que los actuales sistemas de revisión por pares y publicación enfrentan y que permiten cuestionar la utilidad del criterio si el objetivo de los tribunales es valorar la calidad de la información científica.

Citas

Altman, L. K., 2006: «For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap», en New York Times, May 2, F1.

Armstrong, D., 2006: «Bitter Pill: How the New England Journal of Medicine Missed Warning Signs in Vioxx-Medical Weekly Waited Years to Report Flaws in Article that Praised Pain Drug-Merck Seen as “Punching Bag”», en Wall Street Journal, May 15, A1, A10.

Bailar, J. C., 1991: «Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity, and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review», en Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 137-138.

Begley, S., 2006: «Science Journals Artfully Try to Boost Their Rankings», en Wall Street Journal, June 5, B1, B8.

Bero, L. et al., 1992: «The Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals», en New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 1135-1140.

Bombadier, C. et al., 2000: «Comparison of Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Rofecoxib and Naproxen in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis», en New England Journal of Medicine, 343, núm. 21, 1520-1528.

Brent, R. L., 1995: «Bendectin: Review of the Medical Literature of a Comprehensively Studied Human Nonteratogen and the Most Prevalent Tortogen-Litigen», en Reproductive Toxicology, 9, núm. 4, 337-349.

Brent, R. L., 1997: «Litigation-Produced Pain, Disease, and Suffering: An Experience with Congenital Malformation Lawsuit», en Teratology, 16, núm. 1, 1-13.

Bresalier, R. S. et al., 2005: «Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial», en New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 1092-1102.

Bryant, D. et al., 2006: «How Many Patients? How Many Limbs? Analysis of Patients or Limbs in the Orthopedic Literature: A Systematic Review», en J. Bone & Joint Surgery, 88, 41.

Bridgman, P., 1933: «The Struggle for Intellectual Integrity», en P. Bridgman, 1995: Reflections of a Physicist, New York: Philosophical Library, 2.ª ed.

Burnham, J. C., 1990: «The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.

Carey, B., 2006: «Researcher Pulls his Name from Paper on Prayer and Fertility», en New York Times, December 4, A15.

Chan, A. W. et al., 2004: «Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2457-2465.

Chan, E. J., 1995: «The “Brave New World” of Daubert: True Peer Review, Editorial Peer Review, and Scientific Validity», en NYU Law Review, 70, 100-134.

Couzin, J., y Unger, K., 2006: «Cleaning up the Paper Trail», en Science, 312, 38-43.

Editorial, 1983: «Is Science Really a Pack of Lies?», en Nature, 303, 361.

Flamm, B., 2004: «The Columbia University “Miracle” Study: Flawed and Fraud», en Skeptical Inquirer, 28, 25-31.

Friedman, P- J., 1990: «Correcting the Literature Following Fraudulent Publication», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1416-1419.

García-Berthou, E., y Alcaraz, C., 2004: «Incongruence between Test Statistics and P Values in Medical Papers», en BMS Medical Research Methodology, 4, núm. 13, 1-5.

Gardner, M. J., y Bond, J., 1990: «An Exploratory Study of Statistical Assessment of Papers Published in The British Medical Journal», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1355.

Gravitz, L., 2006: «Biology’s Image Problem», en Rockefeller University Scientist, 1, núm. 1, 10-12.

Haack, S., 2003: Defending Science-Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Haack, S., 2008: «What’s Wrong with Litigation-Driven Science?», en Seton Hall Law Review, 38, núm. 3, 1053-1083. Reimpreso en S. Haack, 2014: Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law, New York: Cambridge University Press, 180-207.

Haller, Ch., y Benowitz, N. L., 2000: «Adverse Cardiovascular and Central Nervous System Events Associated with Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedra Alkaloids», en New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1833-1838.

Henderson, D., 2005: «Journal Says Vioxx Woes Suppressed. Merck Blamed: Correction Sought», en Boston Globe, 9 de diciembre.

Horrobin, D. F., 1990: «The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the Suppression of Innovation», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438-1441.

Horton, R., 2006: «Expression of Concern: Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Oral Cancer», en Lancet, 367.

Ionnadis, J. P. A., 2005: «Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 218-228.

Judson, H. F., 1994: «Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 92-94.

Kronick, D. A., 1990: «Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1321-1322.

Lock, S., 1985: A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

Lock, S., y Smith, J., 1990: «What Do Peer Reviewers Do?», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1341-1343.

Martinson, B. C. et al., 2005: «Scientists Behaving Badly», en Nature, 435, 737-738.

Maxwell, S. R. J., y Webb, D. J., 2005: «Cox-2 Selective Inhibitors-Important Lessons Learned», en Lancet, 365, 449-451.

McCutchen, Ch. W., 1991: «Peer Review: Treacherous Servant, Disastrous Master», en Technology Review, 94, 28-51.

Neville, J. A. et al., 2006: «Errors in the Archives of Dermatology and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology from January through December 2003», en Archives Dermatology, 142, 737-38.

Osmond, D. H., 1983: «Malice’s Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review», en Journal of Neurobiology, 14, núm. 2, 95-112.

Pfeiffer, M. P., y Snodgrass, G. L., 1990: «The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1420-1423.

Polanyi, M., 1946: Science, Faith, and Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Posner, R. A., 2004: «Against the Law Reviews», en Legal Affairs, 57-58.

Rennie, D., 1986: «Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 256, 2391-2392.

Rennie, D., 2003: «Editorial Peer Review: Its Development and Rationale», en F. Godlee y T. Jefferson (eds.): Peer Review in Health Sciences, London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2.ª ed.

Smith, R., 1997: «Peer Review: Reform or Revolution?», en British Medical Journal, 315, 759-760.

Sox, H. C., y Rennie, D., 2006: «Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case», en Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 609-613.

Sudbø, J. et al., 2005: «Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Oral Cancer: A Nested Case-Control Study», en Lancet, 366, 1359-1366.

Sun, M., 1989: «Peer Review Comes under Peer Review», en Science, 224, 910-912.

Vail, A., y Gardener, E., 2003: «Common Statistical Errors in the Design and Analysis of Subfertility Trials», en Human Reproduction, 18, núm. 5, 1000-1004.

Wade, N., y Sang-Hun, Ch., 2006: «Human Cloning Was All Faked, Koreans Report», en New York Times, January 10, A1.

Weller, A. C., 1990: «Editorial Peer Review in U.S. Medical Journals», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1344-1345.

Won Tesoriero, H., 2007: «Vioxx Study Correction May Add Pressure to Merck’s Defense», en Wall Street Journal, June 27, A2.

Wysocki, B. Jr., 2005: «Scholarly Journals’ Premier Status is Diluted by Web», en Wall Street Journal, May 23, A1, A8.

Yankauer, A., 1990: «Who Are the Peer Reviewers and How Much Do They Review?», en Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1338-1340.

Ziman, J. M., 1968: Public Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziman, J. M., 1969: «Information, Communication, Knowledge», en Nature, 318-324.

Zuckerman, H., y Merton, R. K., 1971: «Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalism, Structure, and Functions of the Referee System», en Minerva, 9, 66-100.

Estadísticas

Estadísticas en RUA

Publicado

15-11-2015

Cómo citar

Haack, S. (2015). La evaluación por pares y la publicación: lecciones para abogados. Doxa. Cuadernos De Filosofía Del Derecho, (38), 15–40. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2015.38.01

Número

Sección

Artículos