Although peer-reviewed scientific evidence is central to most mass tort and product liability litigations, peer review is not foolproof and the fact that an article has been peer reviewed does not guarantee high quality or even scientific accuracy.
As an editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association explained, there is "no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."
Accordingly, it is important for counsel to consider the potential weaknesses of peer-reviewed studies relied on by plaintiffs' experts.
This article discusses the substance and procedure of how such studies may be undermined or limited.
For this article and others on product liability litigation strategies, please read Kaye Scholer's report on debunking Daubert expert testimony.
» Download the report.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
