> Science is only as robust as its peer review system.<p>This exaggerates the influence of peer review on modern science. Modern peer review is frequently (not always) a rubber-stamp way to catch perfect rubbish before it gets into print, but it cannot detect intentional fraud or sloppy work:<p>Source: <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow">http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...</a><p>Title: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"<p>In fact, science is only as robust as its practitioners and their motivations. At the moment, science is in the midst of a credibility crisis because of sometimes overwhelming pressure to produce "results" when there are none to be had:<p>Source: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-...</a><p>Title: "In cancer science, many 'discoveries' don't hold up"<p>Quote: "During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 'landmark' publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: <i>47 of the 53 could not be replicated</i>."<p>This is deplorable and justifies the "crisis" label. But changes in peer review won't make any difference.