Peer review at the Ministry of Silly Walks

Abstract Background Fifty years ago, the groundbreaking British sketch seriesMonty Python’s Flying Circus premiered on BBC One and forever changed the world of comedy. The humour transcended mere absurdity by poking a subversive finger in the eye of buttoned-up British society. Here, we commemorate this cultural milestone and simultaneously call attention to an emerging concept in the health sciences, termed simplified peer review. The union of these disparate subjects motivates a formal gait analysis based on one of the troupe’s most iconic sketches, “The Ministry of Silly Walks”, a satire of bureaucratic inefficiency. Research question The sketch portrays peer review as exceedingly efficient, lasting all of 20 seconds. But was it fair? The answer depends on how one measures silliness. If silly walking can be defined as deviations from typical walking, then it can be quantified using video-based gait analysis. Methods To assess the quality of peer review at the Ministry of Silly Walks, we measured knee flexion in the sagittal plane of motion and calculated the Gait Variable Score (GVS) for three gait cycles, those of the Minister (n = 2) and Mr. Pudey (n = 1), an applicant for a Research Fellowship. Results For the Minister, we found large deviations from typical walking across two gait cycles (GVSknee(1) = 33.6, GVSknee(2) = 23.3), whereas the gait of Mr Pudey produced an intermediate score (GVSknee = 16.3). By this measure, Mr Pudney’s walk is 3.3 times more variable than typical walking, whereas an exemplary silly walk is 6.7 and 4.7 times more variable, respectively, than typical walking. Significance Our analysis corroborates the Minister’s assessment: Mr Pudey is a promising applicant and deserving of a Research Fellowship to advance his silly walk. We suggest that the sketch holds special resonance and uncanny prescience for researchers in the health sciences today.