David Allison

So the New England journals of the world, the sciences of the world, the jammers of the world, they have the resources within reason and the sophistication and

to sort of go after this, but they can't get everything.

Often when I think about the idea of peer reviewing, but also to some extent the editorial review, which has a little more teeth than the peer reviewers themselves, I look at it like restaurant reviews.

If Zagat or whoever goes in to review a restaurant or sort of give them Michelin stars, they can tell you, did they like the offerings on the menu?

Was the food tasty?

Did it look good?

Was the service good?

They're not going back and doing a microbial count in the kitchen.

They're not checking how often the chef washed his or her hands.

Those are things you need a health inspector who's got some authority, who can do spot checking, surprise visits, who's got equipment, and so on.

That's what you need there.

And I think peer reviewers are like restaurant critics.

Does it look good?

Is it interesting?

As a peer reviewer, I can't go back and look at everybody's raw data.

In some cases, we'll see something that looks funny.

And then through the journal, we're doing a couple of these now, we will get the raw data from people.

And then we often see things that are quite funny.

And we often get a lot of fights with review authors who don't want to let us look at their raw data and kind of tells you something.

Short answer is we are.