As the communicator for the Sea Grant Oil Spill Science Outreach Program, I assist the team’s specialists in getting answers about oil spills to the public through every available platform, including the ongoing summer webinar series. These events stream simultaneously on Zoom and the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium’s Facebook page and cover topics like how oil impacts everything from air and water quality to oysters.
Coming later in July, we will be hosting webinars specifically on how oil breaks down and the scientific occurrence called marine snow. We only share peer-reviewed science in all of our publications and programming so that our audiences can trust the information is valid. But, what exactly is the peer review process and how does it help scientists and non-scientists alike navigate the constant flow of new information?
Science makes headlines a lot these days. Whether it’s stories about the ways a virus spreads or how quickly polar ice caps are melting, a basic understanding of scientific principals certainly helps filter through the noise. But let’s face it—many of us don’t have much more than a basic understanding. Even a trained scientist might feel overwhelmed or confused by a load of data-filled talking points from outside of their discipline.
We’ve all had it happen—the family member/neighbor/coworker with strong feelings about [insert controversial issue here] sends you an article on a hot-button subject to get your opinion. These pieces usually have titles like “Forget everything you thought you knew about x” or “What the government won’t tell you about y” and come complete with official-looking charts and graphs explaining the scientific validity of whatever point the author is trying to make. But, are these articles valid? Many seem so to the lay reader, as they are intended to. The question we all need to ask ourselves (and ask the person who sent it to us for good measure) is whether or not this scientific evidence that seems so convincing has been peer-reviewed.
The peer review process developed along with scientific journals as a way of ensuring that they were presenting factually correct information. Basically, for a reputable journal to publish a study, a jury of scientific peers—other experts in that particular field—must first affirm that the study supports its conclusions. Oil spill specialist Missy Partyka explains that reviewers “look at the strength of the study design, the way the data were analyzed, the depth of understanding of the topic, and the reasonableness of the conclusions.”
Here’s how it works: an author, or more likely group of authors, work on a study for a number of months or even years. When they feel like they’ve reached a conclusion that makes sense, they write up their discoveries and submit them in the form of a journal article.
If the journal’s editorial staff think the study shows promise, they will accept it—contingent on passing peer review. A team of peers reviews the article, making comments in places where they have questions about the study’s methods, feel that the resulting numbers don’t add up or think the conclusions the authors have drawn aren’t clear. Usually the journal editor gives the authors an opportunity to answer reviewer questions and make the clarifications needed to go forward with publishing. However, if the peer comments are overwhelmingly negative or raise enough questions that the validity of the study comes into doubt, the journal will decline to publish it altogether.
So back to the article sent to you by the well-meaning science-lover—does it contain peer-reviewed science? The answer is sometimes. Any media piece that cites new scientific information, whether it be a TV news spot or personal blog, should state clearly where that information first appeared, either in the body of the text or in a reference list. If it doesn’t, but states the claim as fact, approach it with skepticism. If it does cite its source, it’s very easy to look up the journal to see if its articles are peer-reviewed.
The peer review process is designed to make good studies stronger and weed out problematic ones. For this reason, scientists and non-scientists alike can reasonably conclude that articles in peer-reviewed journals should be seriously considered as containing valid answers. Sea Grant extension professionals, like the oil spill science specialists on my team, can take it one step further by breaking down the points in a peer-reviewed article and explaining them to someone with little to no background.
Meet the author
