• Home
  • Development of Heparin and HS Glycotherapeutics
  • Lab
  • People

Ferniglab Blog

The personal blog of Dave Fernig, thoughts on science and unrelated matters

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Keeping time
A disgrace? Yes. Surprised? No »

Peer review, stings and editors

October 8, 2013 by ferniglab


The so-called “sting” by Science on Open Access journals has brought a lot of criticism, some of this is here, and here. For me the best has been Micheal Eisen’s post, which uses satire to show that Science was well wide of the mark.

As the discussion dies down on the subject, I have had a few thoughts. First, what might have been Science’s motive? Was it simply to try to tickle their readers, to undermine Open Access or to distinguish Science from other journals? Put bluntly, the “sting” was completely lacking in rigour in terms of the method and the reporting of the data. There have always been vanity publishers and Jeffrey Beall has a list of these here.
It is obvious that you can get anything published through a vanity publisher and that any test of the peer review system should not include such journals. My conclusion is that Science were trying in part to shore up the argument for maintaining journals and the status quo.

Note that there is a trend here. Great rhetoric, and bad practice. If you look at a series of editorials in Nature on allied subjects (peer review, reproducibility and so on, see image).
Nature Editorials on Science it isn’t difficult to spot the chasm between rhetoric and practice. For another view on this chasm, see David Vaux’s excellent guest post at Retraction Watch, where he describes his frustrations with Nature that led him to retract his News and Views article, because they would not take action over a paper that was clearly wrong.

So how fares peer review? Same as ever, very uneven. This summer saw yet another paper on so-called “Stripy nanoparticles” published in ACS Nano. Those following this saga will look at the data and sigh.

Peer review prior to publication is only the start. What really interests us is how the new knowledge communicated in a paper alters our view of the world. This means that, like education, peer review is a continuous process. PubPeer, which I have mentioned before (here and here) provides a route for post publication peer review. Activity at PubPeer is increasing, which is good to see. In my own field of fibroblast growth factors six papers have attracted comments.
These papers are in Endocrinology 2011; two in Am J Path 2003
and 2010; Arterio Scler Throm Vasc Biol 2003; J Clin. Invest. 2002; J Biol Chem 2002;

I cannot find any papers with comments relating to heparan sulfate or proteoglycans – I hope this stays that way, the field is extremely collegial, open and scientifically functional. My other area of activity, materials, does not fare so well. Indeed, the two papers attracting the highest number of comments from the greatest number of Peers are the now infamous Cell paper on stem cells (42 comments), accepted within 3 days of submission and then subject to a “correction” due to “image problems” and a materials paper on a gold nanoparticle-based plasmonic sensor (26 comments). The latter has no input from the authors or from the journal.

Such a lack of response is not exceptional – the six FGF papers have yet to elicit a response from authors or journals. However, I for one would definitely like to know. These papers are exciting. Is the work right or are there in fact major underlying problems? More and more people are using PubPeer as a “filter” for papers. These and other papers are on my “at risk” list. I would not spend time reading them or incorporating the new knowledge they communicate until such time as there is a response.

So while PubPeer seems to work well at the level of the scientific community engaging in post publication peer review, those who are responsible for publishing, authors and journals often do not want to engage (this is not always the case, see here). It would be nice to see some degree of follow though from journals and editors, rather than their sheltering in the bunker to protect commercial interest. In this light, I would have a quiet word of advice to editors at all journals, whether professional, as one might find at Science and Nature or amateur, as in many specialist journals, where the editor has a day job too: an editor has a major responsibility to the readership and so the community. At present the community is extremely cynical regarding the quality of journals. Metrics from impact factors to eigen values are a source of mirth (sometiems of the gallows flavour), not earnest discussion. So do exactly what it says on the box marked “Editor”. You will earn respect and the community’s perception of the quality of your journal will rise.

This would be far more interesting than rhetoric that is a long way from practice and poor attempts at investigating flaws in peer review.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Development, Nanotechnology, Peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 1 Comment

One Response

  1. on October 8, 2013 at 6:50 pm Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » Peer review, stings and editors

    […] “The so-called ‘sting’ by Science on Open Access journals has brought a lot of criticism, some of this is here, and here. For me the best has been Micheal Eisen’s post, which uses satire to show that Science was well wide of the mark …” (more) […]



Comments are closed.

  • Places of interest

    The one and only PhD comics, the guide to being a graduate and to mentoring.

    Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels

    Retraction Watch provides updates on retractions of articles.

    Office for Research Integrity, their video should be compulsory for all.

    Centre for Alternative Technology

    Lateral Science, has some quite stunning information - well worth a browse.

    Fascinating places that have been closed by lawyers

    Science Fraud, shut down due to legal threats on Jan 3 2013. and Abnormal Science

  • Blogroll

    • WordPress.com
    • WordPress.org
  • Funding agencies

    • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
    • Cancer and Polio Research Fund
    • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
    • Liverpool Pancreas NIHR Biomedical Research Unit
    • Medical Research Council
    • North West Cancer Research
  • Seminars

    • Cancer Research UK Centre
  • October 2013
    M T W T F S S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
    « Sep   Dec »
  • Archives

    • November 2022
    • July 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • August 2020
    • June 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • December 2019
    • October 2019
    • July 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • January 2019
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • October 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • March 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
  • Follow me on Twitter

    My Tweets
  • Cloud

    American Civil War antithrombin III banana Biological imaging biotechnology Brexit Choanoflagellates chocolate chondroitin sulfate coagulation Confederate States covid19 DN Lee Education EU EU referendum Europe extracellular matrix FGF Fibroblast growth factor Food FRET sensors Gish Gallop glycosaminoglycans GMO government Graduate students heparan sulfate heparin history of science imaging Irvine Stephens Bulloch James Bulloch James Dunwoody Bulloch Liverpool microbiology Nanoparticle Nanoparticles Nanotechnology neuroscience nmr Open Access Open Data orange Parliament Peer Review PhD polysaccharide port sunlight Post publication peer review protein chemistry REF research Research Excellence Framework Research integrity Roast SARS-CoV-2 science Science and Technology Committee Science fraud Science Funding Science progress Scientific American Seminars sorbet speaking strawberry sulfation Sulfotransferase synthetic biology Teaching technology transfer Tourism Travel Universities

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Join 73 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: