Science is a social construct. It's not enough to make a solitary observation in your lab; you must also convince other scientists that you've discovered something real. Science in action is an ongoing march of collective scrutiny, questioning, revision, and consensus. That each discovery has to run such a gauntlet imbues published, peer-reviewed studies with a great deal of power in society. This is no mere cant, rhetoric, or opinion, we say: this is science. Science's social nature comes with a weakness, however. Because scientists focus so much on trying to persuade their peers, it's all too easy for them to forget the real goal: getting us closer to the truth. And because scientists are human beings, the ways they try to persuade each other aren't always rational or objective. Unwittingly, we've ended up with a system that doesn't just overlook such human flaws, but amplifies them. In recent years, it's become painfully obvious that peer review is far from the guarantee of reliability it's cracked up to be, while the system of publication that's supposed to be a crucial strength of science has become its Achilles' heel. Book jacket.