Peer review requires revisions

The hamsters first shook my faith in peer review. They were the models in a study investigating whether Cr(vi) ions are released from chromium alloys implanted in the body. However, it was obvious to me – even as a first year PhD student with a rudimentary knowledge of electrochemistry – that the conclusion of the paper was overblown; a flaw in the experimental conditions meant the results of the accelerated corrosion tests didn’t translate to real-world conditions. I still wonder whether the hamsters’ sacrifice was worth it.

The paper was published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal – albeit one that didn’t specialise in corrosion. It’s impossible to know what happened in the review process, but I suspect there just wasn’t a corrosion scientist on the panel of peer reviewers – a simple case of missing expertise. (The fact that no one else appeared to have criticised the paper in the 25 years between its publication and my reading of it strengthens my suspicions that it never reached a corrosion audience.)

It’s not surprising that oversights like this happen occasionally.