Health economist Jason Semprini studied policies requiring elementary school students to receive the HPV vaccine and found that such mandates do little to reduce overall cervical cancer rates, despite HPV being the cause of most cervical cancers. After he submitted the paper for peer review—the anonymous, volunteer process by which researchers evaluate whether work should be published—the reviewer missed the study’s central point.
The reviewer mistakenly thought Semprini was questioning the vaccine’s effectiveness, rather than assessing the policy meant to increase vaccination rates. Semprini stressed the difference, highlighting how an overburdened peer-review system can lead to serious misunderstandings.
Comments