Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:12:43.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Peer Review and Publication

Lessons for Lawyers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2014

Susan Haack
Affiliation:
University of Miami
Get access

Summary

[A] pertinent consideration [in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact] is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication.

–Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)

The phrase “peer review” connotes the evaluation (“review”) of scientific or other scholarly work by others presumed to have expertise in the relevant field (“peers”). Specifically, and most to the present purpose, it refers to the evaluation of submitted manuscripts to determine what work is published in professional journals and what books are published by academic presses (in which context it is also called “refereeing,” “editorial peer review,” or “pre-publication peer review”). Occasionally, however, the phrase is used in a much broader sense, to cover the whole long-run history of the scrutiny of a scientist’s work within the scientific community, and of others’ efforts to build on it, a long-run process of which peer review in the narrower sense is only a small part.

These two conceptions of peer review, the narrow and the broad, both came into play in the arguments over the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert testimony in Daubert. In 1989, granting Merrell Dow’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Dauberts’ proffered causation evidence was inadmissible, the district court had stressed that “none of the published studies show a statistically significant association between the use of Bendectin and birth defects”; and affirming this decision in 1991, observing that “no published epidemiological study had demonstrated a statistically significant association between Bendectin and birth defects,” and that “the normal peer[-]review process … is one of the hallmarks of reliable scientific investigation,” Judge Kozinski also took peer-reviewed publication to be a key factor.

Type
Chapter
Information
Evidence Matters
Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law
, pp. 156 - 179
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×