Peer review as a tool for maintaining scientific neutrality

Abstract

This article proposes a critical analysis of the peer review procedure carried out by scientific journals as part of the publication selection process, raising discussions about its effectiveness as an evaluation tool. In order to identify the roots of the implementation of such a procedure, we start with a brief history of the origins of peer review that goes back to the origins of scientific journals themselves. Subsequently, we discuss the effectiveness of the practice through the direct debate between two scientists on the topic – published on the blog Ciência Fundamental, by Folha de São Paulo –, as well as the recent crisis situations in scientific journals that brought to light the problems of this evaluatio system. Finally, it is concluded that peer review reflects an ideal of science neutrality, guided by a consolidated scientific objectivity, and the use of a situated approach to discuss possible ways of evaluating scientific production is defended.