I attended a science online event a few weeks ago about research articles in the news but not reviewed. Most of the discussions were focused on how we perceive peer-reviewed articles, and those that are not reviewed. Both scientists and science writers at this event seemed to think presenting research without peer review was beneficial for some fields of research and more risky for other fields.

As a medical researcher I was unaware that physicists often present their work on the website arXiv.org, without peer review. To me, this seems a healthy way to present and share science. Although I was told many of these articles eventually go on to peer review, I was still impressed how openly and fearlessly these researchers shared their new data.

One of the writers at this event insinuated that in the medical or health-related fields of research you have to be more careful about what you publish or report. I suppose unconfirmed or preliminary research may inspire some people to treat themselves with something or some technique that could have detrimental effects on their health. Of course scientists or even writers may not want to be involved in such liability risks.

However, this kind of problem is not as likely to occur in the field of physics or mathematics. Some of the scientists at the event suggested that the legitimacy of physics research is easier to assess and is more open to sharing than other fields because physics and math work can often be validated with a piece of paper and pencil, or calculator. Even though I am not a physicist, I am not sure I entirely agree. Could people easily validate that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light just with a pencil and paper? 

Perhaps there is a lot of work generated in physics that can be easily checked out on paper and this encourages a more open scientific environment in general where people share their ideas regardless of how difficult it is to verify the results of the research. On the other hand, it may be that peer review seems more necessary in fields like medical research because understanding research papers of this nature require a great deal of experience at the lab bench, as well as understanding the nature of various animal models or organisms and experience with very specific techniques that require specific instrumentation.

In the end, I wish that all scientists could share their ideas openly and willingly give each other feedback. I think this would improve the quality of science and make it less of a rat race. Unfortunately, it seems that too many scientists, especially medical researchers, focus more on getting their data out before their competitor, rather than focusing on working together to find a solution to a problem.