[dadrian]

I think we're saying the same thing. You're trusting the statistical analysis done by the author. When I peer review, I check to make sure that the conclusions the paper draws are in line with what it says statistical analysis was, and I check to make sure that the analysis used is the right one, but I don't check their math. And also, I'm not a statistician, so I'm not authoritative on the full space of statistical analysis, anyway.

[nieto915]

who really has all of the hours in a day to do it too. I think it'll all come down to the journal's integrity. academia will have to learn to negotiate the premiums of their library subscriptions for better editing/curation for each journal they subscribe to. its already pay to play, might as well get your money's worth.

[kuhewa]

I'm burnt out on reviews, I did maybe ten last year but never spend less than a day on each and sometimes two. In my papers every reference fits to the best of my knowledge (knowledge informed by actually reading said cited material) and i follow best practices in statistical analyses, so I hold other papers to the same standard. Just an unsustainable standard to hold. I'd like to see journals pay statisticians to focus on methodology, I'm not sure if honourariums are a solution for peer review though. It would help me justify spending the time to do them but I reckon there would be a subset of hyperprolific reviewers half assing it more than ever to maximise the income per time spent.

[jhbadger]

And often it is impossible to replicate the results as a reviewer even without fraud being involved because at least in studies involving DNA sequences, these sequences are generally only added to Genbank (or EMBL, or whatever repository depending on country) when a paper is accepted and so reviewers don't have access to it.