Abstract
ra;aG>?HE scientific review process has evolved on the premise that "two heads are better than one." Its application in epidemiology, as in any other endeavor, is essential for maintaining standards which are fundamental to the advancement of the science. In principle, the guidance of <9eA peers is sought to ensure that new evidence, or a new perspective on old evidence, is added to traditional scientific evidence in accord with "the scientific method." In recent years, however, the practical application of the review process has caused ethical concerns to be raised, particularly when the interpretation of the science requires an artistic component as well. A delicate balance can be involved in judging whether or not a piece of research conforms with "the scientific method." It is the purpose of this paper to highlight instances where the review process has been shown to have been imperfect and to recommend the development of safeguards to help advance epidemiology as a science.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
