Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

How are reviewers selected to review a manuscript submitted for publication?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 science noob

science noob

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
20
Excellent

Posted 03 December 2012 - 04:41 AM

I know that sometimes, authors can choose or nominate reviewers in the field for their own manuscripts. But how does the anonymous selection process go for non-nominated reviewers? Are they on the editorial board? or these information remain confidential?

Would we ever know who reviewed a particular manuscript?

Chances that some of them might be 'competitors', i.e. people in the field?

#2 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:28 AM

I know that sometimes, authors can choose or nominate reviewers in the field for their own manuscripts. But how does the anonymous selection process go for non-nominated reviewers? Are they on the editorial board? or these information remain confidential?

Would we ever know who reviewed a particular manuscript?

Chances that some of them might be 'competitors', i.e. people in the field?


Indeed.
And thats the problem: if you have competitors, you might end up with problems.
Thats why some journals let you state which people you do NOT want to read your paper, to prevent problems.

But even then, you can face problems;
For example, I am aware of 1 study in my lab that was kept back because another institute was also working on it and the journal (very high impact) kept the study of our lab back for a while and the other lab published theirs while they were months later ... The journal favored a lab from their own country...
And our lab then published a bit later in a low impact journal.. gone was the novelty/big impact post just because of such crap.
Now, if it takes too long, we just send it in to lower impact journals so we do have the first impact paper on a novelty.
(altough, this example is of course rare)

+ I am also aware that some "well known labs" even laugh with results that do not mix/follow with theirs.. For example a lab has found pretty new/strange results (in conflict with a known theory) then the well know labs often just call it idiotic and break it down if they receive it for review. So often the smaller labs or other labs with new insights pick (like said before) small impact journals to publish it , just to get it published..




So its not all that 100% honest.
And it seems that the lowever the journalsimpact factor (and the more its open source) the more honest it gets!
Sadly but true.
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.

#3 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:11 AM

Probably, its just good to publish in low IF journals.
If your work is good, people will eventually follow your work.

Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. :)

NEW!!!!  5 Reasons why Rosetta is a SUPERSTAR on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#4 science noob

science noob

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
20
Excellent

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:59 AM

Probably, its just good to publish in low IF journals.
If your work is good, people will eventually follow your work.

Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. Posted Image



Please explain this? "wont be able to retain their positions", meaning their "impact factor" will drop? Don't see that happening to the big journals like the Nature series, Science and Cell series?

Sad thing is people do look at impact factor. Dilemma is this: try to publish in a high IF and wait months more OR publish easily in open source or slightly lower IF.






I know that sometimes, authors can choose or nominate reviewers in the field for their own manuscripts. But how does the anonymous selection process go for non-nominated reviewers? Are they on the editorial board? or these information remain confidential?

Would we ever know who reviewed a particular manuscript?

Chances that some of them might be 'competitors', i.e. people in the field?


Indeed.
And thats the problem: if you have competitors, you might end up with problems.
Thats why some journals let you state which people you do NOT want to read your paper, to prevent problems.

But even then, you can face problems;
For example, I am aware of 1 study in my lab that was kept back because another institute was also working on it and the journal (very high impact) kept the study of our lab back for a while and the other lab published theirs while they were months later ... The journal favored a lab from their own country...
And our lab then published a bit later in a low impact journal.. gone was the novelty/big impact post just because of such crap.
Now, if it takes too long, we just send it in to lower impact journals so we do have the first impact paper on a novelty.
(altough, this example is of course rare)

+ I am also aware that some "well known labs" even laugh with results that do not mix/follow with theirs.. For example a lab has found pretty new/strange results (in conflict with a known theory) then the well know labs often just call it idiotic and break it down if they receive it for review. So often the smaller labs or other labs with new insights pick (like said before) small impact journals to publish it , just to get it published..




So its not all that 100% honest.
And it seems that the lowever the journalsimpact factor (and the more its open source) the more honest it gets!
Sadly but true.


Rumour has it that publishing in science involves alot of internal politics - connections with editorial board/editor, selection of 'collaborators' as reviewers, university affiliations with publisher etc.

Where do you see the integrity of scientific publication heading to? The "well known labs" getting all the benefit of the doubt and "smaller labs" perishing?

And another question is has anyone met any tough reviewers or reviewing process? and when do you pull the plug? or do you let the editor/reviewer pull it for you?

#5 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:51 AM

Probably, its just good to publish in low IF journals.
If your work is good, people will eventually follow your work.

Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. Posted Image



Indeed, the big change is that we are going towards open source journals.
The high impact journals are very expensive and many (new generations) researchers are not paying for it anymore.
Or they are protesting against the way how those "journals" (organisations, the ones that print it etc) deal with the universities etc
(for example: you need to buy a lot of crappy journals in order to get a acceptable price for the better ones)


On the other hand: older generations (or some new researchers) still focus too much on the impact factor..
To become a professor for example, they often look at the journals you published in.. Even if your work is good, without a (good) paper in a high ranked journal you have a small change to become a professor.
Same with having many papers, but not enough papers as a first or last author.
(even this is often idotic)




Probably, its just good to publish in low IF journals.
If your work is good, people will eventually follow your work.

Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. Posted Image



Please explain this? "wont be able to retain their positions", meaning their "impact factor" will drop? Don't see that happening to the big journals like the Nature series, Science and Cell series?

Sad thing is people do look at impact factor. Dilemma is this: try to publish in a high IF and wait months more OR publish easily in open source or slightly lower IF.



As said before: many start to protest against how they sell their journals. Also the price to publish in those journals is very high, people are more and more protesting against this and picking open source journals.
When more and more professors/researchers start to deny moderating papers for those "high impact" journals they will face problems.
Also many of them will refuse to publish in them and more and more (now) low impact, free journals will become popular and their impact factor will rise.

Another problem is that, for example, nature is very diverse in what they publish. So whats the point to publish something specific about a certain cancer for example in a journal that also contains papers about computers/evolutions/physics and not publish it in a journal more specific about cancers.

It will change, but very slow.
A lot depends on the future generations...



I know that sometimes, authors can choose or nominate reviewers in the field for their own manuscripts. But how does the anonymous selection process go for non-nominated reviewers? Are they on the editorial board? or these information remain confidential?

Would we ever know who reviewed a particular manuscript?

Chances that some of them might be 'competitors', i.e. people in the field?


Indeed.
And thats the problem: if you have competitors, you might end up with problems.
Thats why some journals let you state which people you do NOT want to read your paper, to prevent problems.

But even then, you can face problems;
For example, I am aware of 1 study in my lab that was kept back because another institute was also working on it and the journal (very high impact) kept the study of our lab back for a while and the other lab published theirs while they were months later ... The journal favored a lab from their own country...
And our lab then published a bit later in a low impact journal.. gone was the novelty/big impact post just because of such crap.
Now, if it takes too long, we just send it in to lower impact journals so we do have the first impact paper on a novelty.
(altough, this example is of course rare)

+ I am also aware that some "well known labs" even laugh with results that do not mix/follow with theirs.. For example a lab has found pretty new/strange results (in conflict with a known theory) then the well know labs often just call it idiotic and break it down if they receive it for review. So often the smaller labs or other labs with new insights pick (like said before) small impact journals to publish it , just to get it published..




So its not all that 100% honest.
And it seems that the lowever the journalsimpact factor (and the more its open source) the more honest it gets!
Sadly but true.


Rumour has it that publishing in science involves alot of internal politics - connections with editorial board/editor, selection of 'collaborators' as reviewers, university affiliations with publisher etc.

Where do you see the integrity of scientific publication heading to? The "well known labs" getting all the benefit of the doubt and "smaller labs" perishing?

And another question is has anyone met any tough reviewers or reviewing process? and when do you pull the plug? or do you let the editor/reviewer pull it for you?



Its indeed possible that there a is a lot internal politics involved. Its said to be pro usa in general.


And indeed: you can have a very irritating person as a reviewer or for example someone from another lab.. that will break down your research because he does not want your lab to publish something better then his lab or something like that.
But when to pull the plug? Hard to tell.. depends on the situation..
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.

#6 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:10 PM



Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. Posted Image



Please explain this? "wont be able to retain their positions", meaning their "impact factor" will drop? Don't see that happening to the big journals like the Nature series, Science and Cell series?

Sad thing is people do look at impact factor. Dilemma is this: try to publish in a high IF and wait months more OR publish easily in open source or slightly lower IF.


Pito, pretty much explained it and like he said it, it is a slow process. We can make it quicker by staging a sort of boycott of the bigger journals but its probably risking too much for young researchers who are trying to make a mark in the scientific world.

Having limited reviewers can often lead to a bias. Scientific content too should be available like videos on YouTube and let people (primarily scientists, later the common man too could pitch in, its his money that researchers spend) decide which makes more sense to them. They can like/ dislike it and that should be the way of judging the impact of the study (not the citations a paper receives in a given year).

Pito is probably going to disagree with such a public reception of science. I shall wait for his comments :)

NEW!!!!  5 Reasons why Rosetta is a SUPERSTAR on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#7 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:43 AM



Over the years, the current high IF journals will no longer be able to retain their positions.

So, consider it as an investment you are making now, that will appreciate over time. Posted Image



Please explain this? "wont be able to retain their positions", meaning their "impact factor" will drop? Don't see that happening to the big journals like the Nature series, Science and Cell series?

Sad thing is people do look at impact factor. Dilemma is this: try to publish in a high IF and wait months more OR publish easily in open source or slightly lower IF.


Pito, pretty much explained it and like he said it, it is a slow process. We can make it quicker by staging a sort of boycott of the bigger journals but its probably risking too much for young researchers who are trying to make a mark in the scientific world.

Having limited reviewers can often lead to a bias. Scientific content too should be available like videos on YouTube and let people (primarily scientists, later the common man too could pitch in, its his money that researchers spend) decide which makes more sense to them. They can like/ dislike it and that should be the way of judging the impact of the study (not the citations a paper receives in a given year).

Pito is probably going to disagree with such a public reception of science. I shall wait for his comments Posted Image


I do disagree with you!
But not entirely.

I am big fan of open source journals and "open source" reviewing. However I realise this is a very idealistic idea. And it also has some disadvantages because rival labs could break it down publicaly just to give the rival lab a bad reputation.
In an ideal situation the reviewers would be people that have no interest at all in the paper they read (and I do not mean they are not "interested", but I mean that they are not rivals or have no advantage/disadvantage by reviewing the paper).

However: about the "let the people" judge it.. its too wide.. Ok, you said primarily scientists and then the common man later, but how are you going to do this?
Not a lot of scienists will be prepared to judge papers and use their real name (publicly available paper/comments) .. And how are you going to select on who can read/judge the paper at first?
Because, if you open everything for the common man..you will see idiots (for example extreme religious people) entering the debate and causing problems..
And how do you select the scientists in the first place?


Having a limited number of reviewers is bad, but having too many is bad too..

We should have 100% objective reviewers! People that do not make money with research.. So in an ideal world (or at least in my ideal world) we would have reviewers that review 100% . They do not do any research, gather funds, do not work for a lab, they do not need to publish.... their sole job is reading papers in their field and reviewing them and thats it. And from different countries/nationalities because even this might influence reviewers.

They could be people with a MSc degree or PhD that became reviewers right after their thesis or after they did some work in the industry.
So I would not like people that have done a few post docs (or professors) at 1 lab (and even a PhD is allready possibly a problem because they allready have an idea (love-hate relationship) with their/other labs.


One thing people often tell me is that the papers should be send anonymously to reviewers, but even if this is done: its a small world and they will know which lab wrote the paper in the end..
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.

#8 science noob

science noob

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
20
Excellent

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

Just out of curiousity, has anyone published in a Nature-like journal? Was wondering how rigourous or extensive the publication process is like (from submission, review, revision and acceptance).
Do you get 'invited' to publish in something like Nature or you assume high novelty in your work and give high IF journal a shot?


Also, in reply to Ameya: published scientific content is already very readily available to the general public isn't it? e.g. open source journals, scientific blogs, video-based journals (JOVE). But I can't see how anyone would put say, an unpublished novel work in open space - or at least patent it before you place it online?

Edited by science noob, 07 December 2012 - 05:39 PM.


#9 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:46 AM

Just out of curiousity, has anyone published in a Nature-like journal? Was wondering how rigourous or extensive the publication process is like (from submission, review, revision and acceptance).
Do you get 'invited' to publish in something like Nature or you assume high novelty in your work and give high IF journal a shot?


Also, in reply to Ameya: published scientific content is already very readily available to the general public isn't it? e.g. open source journals, scientific blogs, video-based journals (JOVE). But I can't see how anyone would put say, an unpublished novel work in open space - or at least patent it before you place it online?


It is pretty rigourous... But a big part of the selection allready starts at the beginning: because its so rigourous a lot of people just dont bother to send in their paper anyway. People only send in papers if they know its something special (or have a lot of money).
(not all papers in nature are so spectacular or good)

It costs a lot to publish in nature, so not all labs can afford this.

And you dont really get invited.

about your second question: more and more work is indeed free avaible, but its still not enough! In the future it will become more and more the norm.
(a new idea is the payment you can make to journals to make your paper freely avaible (but this costs a lot, not all labs want to pay for this while the same time they do want to publish in nature for example).

And yes, people will patent it first or just not publish it at all.. (not all things are patented and thus published.. some rather decide to keep the idea (dont share it), use it and not patent it).

And about the open space: researchers should do this more often and especially the wrong things! The problem is that people only publish or bring out things that went ok or are good.
People should also publish those things that didnt work so others can save themself the time to try it out themselfs and fail again!
Especially in tests involled animals this is crucial, you dont want to "waste" the lives of animals for tests allready done and failed.. Sadly just a minority does this.

I find it weird there is no journal created specially for "failed research" !
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.

#10 science noob

science noob

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
20
Excellent

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:46 AM


Just out of curiousity, has anyone published in a Nature-like journal? Was wondering how rigourous or extensive the publication process is like (from submission, review, revision and acceptance).
Do you get 'invited' to publish in something like Nature or you assume high novelty in your work and give high IF journal a shot?


Also, in reply to Ameya: published scientific content is already very readily available to the general public isn't it? e.g. open source journals, scientific blogs, video-based journals (JOVE). But I can't see how anyone would put say, an unpublished novel work in open space - or at least patent it before you place it online?


It is pretty rigourous... But a big part of the selection allready starts at the beginning: because its so rigourous a lot of people just dont bother to send in their paper anyway. People only send in papers if they know its something special (or have a lot of money).
(not all papers in nature are so spectacular or good)

It costs a lot to publish in nature, so not all labs can afford this.

And you dont really get invited.

about your second question: more and more work is indeed free avaible, but its still not enough! In the future it will become more and more the norm.
(a new idea is the payment you can make to journals to make your paper freely avaible (but this costs a lot, not all labs want to pay for this while the same time they do want to publish in nature for example).

And yes, people will patent it first or just not publish it at all.. (not all things are patented and thus published.. some rather decide to keep the idea (dont share it), use it and not patent it).

And about the open space: researchers should do this more often and especially the wrong things! The problem is that people only publish or bring out things that went ok or are good.
People should also publish those things that didnt work so others can save themself the time to try it out themselfs and fail again!
Especially in tests involled animals this is crucial, you dont want to "waste" the lives of animals for tests allready done and failed.. Sadly just a minority does this.

I find it weird there is no journal created specially for "failed research" !


Well, there are journals just for negative/'failed' results: e.g. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine link: http://www.jnrbm.com/

#11 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:54 AM



Just out of curiousity, has anyone published in a Nature-like journal? Was wondering how rigourous or extensive the publication process is like (from submission, review, revision and acceptance).
Do you get 'invited' to publish in something like Nature or you assume high novelty in your work and give high IF journal a shot?


Also, in reply to Ameya: published scientific content is already very readily available to the general public isn't it? e.g. open source journals, scientific blogs, video-based journals (JOVE). But I can't see how anyone would put say, an unpublished novel work in open space - or at least patent it before you place it online?


It is pretty rigourous... But a big part of the selection allready starts at the beginning: because its so rigourous a lot of people just dont bother to send in their paper anyway. People only send in papers if they know its something special (or have a lot of money).
(not all papers in nature are so spectacular or good)

It costs a lot to publish in nature, so not all labs can afford this.

And you dont really get invited.

about your second question: more and more work is indeed free avaible, but its still not enough! In the future it will become more and more the norm.
(a new idea is the payment you can make to journals to make your paper freely avaible (but this costs a lot, not all labs want to pay for this while the same time they do want to publish in nature for example).

And yes, people will patent it first or just not publish it at all.. (not all things are patented and thus published.. some rather decide to keep the idea (dont share it), use it and not patent it).

And about the open space: researchers should do this more often and especially the wrong things! The problem is that people only publish or bring out things that went ok or are good.
People should also publish those things that didnt work so others can save themself the time to try it out themselfs and fail again!
Especially in tests involled animals this is crucial, you dont want to "waste" the lives of animals for tests allready done and failed.. Sadly just a minority does this.

I find it weird there is no journal created specially for "failed research" !


Well, there are journals just for negative/'failed' results: e.g. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine link: http://www.jnrbm.com/


Yes, there are a few out there.. but hardly anyone knows them.

There should be more awareness of it and a bigger database online for everyone.
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.

#12 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 11 December 2012 - 12:40 AM

However: about the "let the people" judge it.. its too wide.. Ok, you said primarily scientists and then the common man later, but how are you going to do this?
Not a lot of scienists will be prepared to judge papers and use their real name (publicly available paper/comments) .. And how are you going to select on who can read/judge the paper at first?
Because, if you open everything for the common man..you will see idiots (for example extreme religious people) entering the debate and causing problems..
And how do you select the scientists in the first place?


Having a limited number of reviewers is bad, but having too many is bad too..

We should have 100% objective reviewers! People that do not make money with research.. So in an ideal world (or at least in my ideal world) we would have reviewers that review 100% . They do not do any research, gather funds, do not work for a lab, they do not need to publish.... their sole job is reading papers in their field and reviewing them and thats it. And from different countries/nationalities because even this might influence reviewers.

They could be people with a MSc degree or PhD that became reviewers right after their thesis or after they did some work in the industry.
So I would not like people that have done a few post docs (or professors) at 1 lab (and even a PhD is allready possibly a problem because they allready have an idea (love-hate relationship) with their/other labs.


One thing people often tell me is that the papers should be send anonymously to reviewers, but even if this is done: its a small world and they will know which lab wrote the paper in the end..


Well, you dont select who reads the paper first, no priorities, it is just published publicly and each reader/ viewer of the paper.

The YouTube like publication is only to judge impact factor of research, through the scientific crowd as well as common crowd.

For the journal, they just need to have editors to keep a eye on writing style, length etc. Rest will be done publicly. This will also allow you to mark/tag labs and researchers that engage only in 'me-too-science' and provide more information when allocating funds.

NEW!!!!  5 Reasons why Rosetta is a SUPERSTAR on CoffeeTableScience!!!!

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist


#13 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:29 AM


However: about the "let the people" judge it.. its too wide.. Ok, you said primarily scientists and then the common man later, but how are you going to do this?
Not a lot of scienists will be prepared to judge papers and use their real name (publicly available paper/comments) .. And how are you going to select on who can read/judge the paper at first?
Because, if you open everything for the common man..you will see idiots (for example extreme religious people) entering the debate and causing problems..
And how do you select the scientists in the first place?


Having a limited number of reviewers is bad, but having too many is bad too..

We should have 100% objective reviewers! People that do not make money with research.. So in an ideal world (or at least in my ideal world) we would have reviewers that review 100% . They do not do any research, gather funds, do not work for a lab, they do not need to publish.... their sole job is reading papers in their field and reviewing them and thats it. And from different countries/nationalities because even this might influence reviewers.

They could be people with a MSc degree or PhD that became reviewers right after their thesis or after they did some work in the industry.
So I would not like people that have done a few post docs (or professors) at 1 lab (and even a PhD is allready possibly a problem because they allready have an idea (love-hate relationship) with their/other labs.


One thing people often tell me is that the papers should be send anonymously to reviewers, but even if this is done: its a small world and they will know which lab wrote the paper in the end..


Well, you dont select who reads the paper first, no priorities, it is just published publicly and each reader/ viewer of the paper.

The YouTube like publication is only to judge impact factor of research, through the scientific crowd as well as common crowd.

For the journal, they just need to have editors to keep a eye on writing style, length etc. Rest will be done publicly. This will also allow you to mark/tag labs and researchers that engage only in 'me-too-science' and provide more information when allocating funds.


But if you dont select you do risk that "idiots" out there will criticise it...
The problem is that you need some sort of experience to know what you are talking about.. Thats why we do have "peer review" journals.. The "peer" is important...

I know that most people (not in that field, non scientist) would not bother to read stuff, however, think about papers on evolution etc.. How religious people abuse those papers..
I remember a case were religious people used a transportersystem in bacteria to build a case on their behalf, to support evolution.. And there are scientist out there believing in this crap...
So what if you open the paper for review for everyone?

Also if you let "everyone" judge papers and you do not have a review prior to publication , then how are you going to stop papers with crap in it?


(I know that even without this open system, idiotis out there are abusing papers, but if you make it too open, then you risk too much interference of idiots)

Ex. leelee mde a post in another topic, I quote it here:

Reminds me of someone I used to work with, who insisted on having her name removed from a paper by one of her previous grad students- he "reanalysed" (I use the term loosely) some data generated while in her lab and his work was TERRIBLE. Despite many conversations first asking and then insisting he change it, he and his new boss did not agree and she didn't want to be associated with his, frankly embarrassing claims. They agreed to remove her name, but it never got published in the end anyway (no surprise there).


WHat if there is no judgement prior to publishing, then papers with crappy statistics or crappy .... can be published and used in other papers..
Not all scientists use papers like they should (not reading them entirely, not checking everything)

Even now with selection some authors use crap references..
An experience I recentely had: I was looking into some literature and 1 paper popped up several times in recent papers as a reference... I tried to locate it (because it was often cited) and after a long search I could not find this paper , found this strange... So I located the authors of that paper and guess what: it turned out that the paper didnt exist at all!
It turned out that it was an abstract from an international meeting (in a little "book" containing all the "papers/research" being presented there), but that it was never presented at the meeting in the end and also never published!
So what happened: one author refered to it , using the abstract as paper, and many other authors also refered to it (most likely simple using the paper that refered to it the first time).

So you see: even with control, there is crap out there...
And its not the first time I find papers that do not exist or that I find references that are not correct
(references that do not exist, references to the wrong paper, references in the paper but not in the list at the end of the paper, wrong dates, wrong conclucions from references, etc...)

Imagine that there would be no control at all...


Now about your "The YouTube like publication is only to judge impact factor of research, through the scientific crowd as well as common crowd"

This I do not get, I see the scientific crow, but the common crowd? What can they say about the "impact" ? Not even the scientist can say a lot about this because what would an ecologist have to say about novel transportsytems in bacteria for example or a microbiologist about novel ideas in the flying dynamics of bats?
Imagine non scientist to say anything about this?
The only people that can judge the impact in a certain field are the ones working in that field.. (too bad this also means that you can have a "fight" between several labs)


And then your last phrase: "
For the journal, they just need to have editors to keep a eye on writing style, length etc. Rest will be done publicly. This will also allow you to mark/tag labs and researchers that engage only in 'me-too-science' and provide more information when allocating funds."

Like I allready said: who is going to check the value of the research if you would only let them check on writing style and lenght?

Besides: writing style and length.. Sometimes I wonder whether its about results or about "writing skills".. I know that a niceley written paper is easier to read.. but at the same time I wonder whether we are not focussing to much on stuff thats not really relevant.
And length: nature requires short reports rather then "real" papers.. SOmetimes this is not ok! Sometimes you need more space/figures to publish something good.


I agree with the idealistic view of being "open" , but realistically speaking we do need some borders!
If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some then not ask and stay stupid.




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.