Publicizing research findings in New York Times before peer review draws criticism

Some researchers are criticizing publication of scientific findings in the media before the results have been peer reviewed and published in science journals.

“It is imperative to ensure that researchers provide reliable scientific knowledge to each other and to the public, as well as to preserve reliance on the scientific process and peer review,” Peter Kardos, Ádám Kun, Csaba Pléh, and Ferenc Jordán wrote in the abstract on their paper on the topic. 

“For these reasons, researchers should be more cautious in communicating unpublished work to the public and more accurate about the status of the presented scientific information,” they added. 

They assert that earlier announcements of findings, before they have been reviewed by other researchers, undermine the peer-review process that is so vital to the integrity of information that gets disseminated.

Their paper arose after a controversy in which The New York Times reported on the findings of a study that showed that a nasal spray prevented ferrets from contracting COVID-19. Even though the newspaper article included a disclaimer that the findings had not been peer reviewed, the authors of the critique say that doesn’t mean much to the general public.

The researchers say it is crucial to ensure that scientific knowledge is reliable and that the peer-review process is maintained. Writing to the public about research findings is positive, but reporting preliminary research findings can be problematic, they say.

The peer-review process is an integral part of scientific research, and it is the responsibility of the reviewers to ensure that the presented ideas and findings represent a meaningful contribution to the scientific field, the researchers say. 

In order to minimize the chance of bad information being publicized, the authors suggest that researchers wait until their work has undergone the peer- review process before sharing their findings with the public. 

“The changing fashion and accelerating speed of reporting and publicizing research findings provide us with the opportunity to reconsider the role and importance of the peer review process and the publication practices we follow,” the authors wrote. “There are ways to improve the quality of peer review, maybe even its speed. But as long as we adhere to it, we must take it seriously.”