On June 5th, The Guardian published “The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?” It used The Lancet’s retraction of an article on negative effects of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment to illuminate the limitations and weaknesses of peer review in the best of times, and especially in a high stakes environment. Through the peer review process an expert(s) reads a manuscript to remove anomalous data and improve analysis, but they do not reproduce experiments or check underlying data (and the data is not necessarily produced). Furthermore, peer review as service is not adequately acknowledged or rewarded. Researchers are incentivized to do research, not review others’ works. Poorly reviewed science, or research not reviewed at all, undermines community trust and scientific impact.
