Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals

[Bob]

Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals
Randy Schekman says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as they distort scientific process.
Ian Sample, science correspondent.
The Guardian.
Monday 9 December 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.

Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.
...

Writing in the Guardian, Schekman raises serious concerns over the journals' practices and calls on others in the scientific community to take action.

"I have published in the big brands, including papers that won me a Nobel prize. But no longer," he writes. "Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of bonus culture, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals."
...

How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science
The incentives offered by top journals distort science, just as big bonuses distort banking.
Randy Schekman.
The Guardian.
Monday 9 December 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

These luxury journals are supposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research. Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as a proxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grants and professorships. But the big journals' reputations are only partly warranted. While they publish many outstanding papers, they do not publish only outstanding papers. Neither are they the only publishers of outstanding research.
...

There is a better way, through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody to read, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote. Born on the web, they can accept all papers that meet quality standards, with no artificial caps. Many are edited by working scientists, who can assess the worth of papers without regard for citations. As I know from my editorship of eLife, an open access journal funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society, they are publishing world-class science every week.

 

[Bob]

I'm not sure if this article has been posted before. It's from November...
It discusses 'PubPeer', which is not the same as PubMed Commons (it's an alternative), but it led the way in terms of anyone being able to comment online on any published paper.


Accusations of fraud spur a revolution in scientific publishing
Three and a half centuries after the first journal was published, post-publication peer review is shaking up the old system.
Dr Mark Lorch.
Friday 8 November 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-revolution-scientific-publishing-peer-review

Scientific publishing may be on the brink of a revolution fought, in part, within the chemistry blogosphere. In the past few months it has been the scene of debate about whether the scientific publishing practices initiated by members of the Royal Society almost 350 years ago are still fit for purpose.
...

But now a system that was designed to share knowledge and stop scientific fraud may be suffering from the very same problems that the pioneering publishers at the Royal Society were trying to overcome, namely fraud and poor communication.
...

This is where the revolutionary part comes in. Spearheaded by PubPeer, there is now a site that allows anyone to comment on any publications. This may not seem like much in an age where comment threads at the foot of news articles are commonplace. However, all but a few scientific publishers have steadfastly resisted following suit. PubPeer, which is becoming the Reddit of the science world, is attempting to make post-publication commenting the norm.

It may still be small fry, but bigger fish have taken notice, most notablyPubMed, an enormous and well used database of medicine-related articles. When Pubmed, last week, added a commenting facility to its database it gave organised post-publication peer review a huge boost. Given this facility to openly discuss scientific papers, we could be in for a brave new world where scientists are no longer judged on the content of their papers but also on the comment threads that follow. Scientists had better grow thick skins, quickly.

 

[natasa778]

While on the subject, someone I know once sent off a paper he co-authored to a journal and didn't hear back from them for many months ... then received an email from the publisher asking if he would like to peer review a paper. It was his paper! (it wasn't one of the top journals, but still a fairly 'respectable' one, with good ranking in the field...)

 

[Bob]

While on the subject, someone I know once sent off a paper he co-authored to a journal and didn't hear back from them for many months ... then received an email from the publisher asking if he would like to peer review a paper. It was his paper! (it wasn't one of the top journals, but still a fairly 'respectable' one, with good ranking in the field...)

I have the impression that journals struggle to attract enough appropriate peer-reviewers, but this seems to be taking recruitment one step too far!
But self-peer-review probably wouldn't be much worse than the current system!?!
At the moment it seems that authors are able to have their buddies and cheer-leaders (aka 'peers') review their papers.

 

[Hip]

Open access journals are not without their problems, quality control seemingly one of them, as this article demonstrates:

Open-Access Group Sanctions Three Publishers After Science 'Sting'

In a "sting" operation, journalist John Bohannon found that dozens of free journals accepted a fake and obviously flawed study that he himself had created in order to test the peer review processes of these open access journals.

 

[Bob]

Open access journals are not without their problems, quality control seemingly one of them, as this article demonstrates:

Open-Access Group Sanctions Three Publishers After Science 'Sting'

In a "sting" operation, journalist John Bohannon found that dozens of free journals accepted a fake and obviously flawed study that he himself had created in order to test the peer review processes of these open access journals.

Agreed.
Here's a very informative article about it...
It's an interesting read...

Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper
Publishing hoax exposes 'wild west' world of open access journals and raises concerns about poor quality control
Friday 4 October 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper

 

[Firestormm]

People who peer review papers - a necessary part of any publication even open access articles I believe - are not paid to do so are they? So what happens if you can't find someone willing/able to peer review?

Doesn't that mean a paper isn't published? I mean a good paper might be missed if nobody is able to peer review it. So peer review relies on, what? Some sort of academic agreement that each scientist will willingly review other people's papers in the hope that his/her own will similarly get reviewed without bias.

The whole system seems to be to be in danger of overload if all papers are now to be published and require peer review - will there come a time when those who peer-review demand payment? If so, will this have a negative effect on the whole effort of open-access? Just wondering in my ignorance of the whole system.

 

[user9876]

People who peer review papers - a necessary part of any publication even open access articles I believe - are not paid to do so are they? So what happens if you can't find someone willing/able to peer review?

Doesn't that mean a paper isn't published? I mean a good paper might be missed if nobody is able to peer review it. So peer review relies on, what? Some sort of academic agreement that each scientist will willingly review other people's papers in the hope that his/her own will similarly get reviewed without bias.

The whole system seems to be to be in danger of overload if all papers are now to be published and require peer review - will there come a time when those who peer-review demand payment? If so, will this have a negative effect on the whole effort of open-access? Just wondering in my ignorance of the whole system.

I think there are real problems at the moment. Academics are now required to publish large numbers of papers so that increases the load (although most papers are repeats or rubbish). At the same time of increasing that work load by doing so the reviewing load goes up.

Peter Higgs said recently in the guardian that in today's academic world he wouldn't have had enough "peace and quiet" to form his theory.

 

[Bob]

Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals

I thought this might be quite a niche subject, and wouldn't attract many readers, so I'm quite surprised at how many 'likes' the opening post has attracted. I think our forum doesn't have a particularly high opinion of the scientific publishing industry!

 

[Firestormm]

I find it difficult as an outsider looking in. 'Inadequate' and 'inappropriate' are judgements I couldn't possibly make I am afraid. I do know that seeking an independent opinion about something, say funding a venture that is being considered by a charity, can always be viewed by others as 'inadequate'.

Or that the person who's opinion is being sought is 'inappropriate' or not the best in the field. But what do you do at the end of the day - there are no guarantees and you can only ask for so many to help and if they can't (if they are too busy - this is all voluntary after all), then what do you do?

You can only take the criticism on board and you can't seek to please everyone: you also don't want the projects (or indeed research publications) held up.

I guess if you publish openly your procedures - take advice in forming them - and then stick to them, that would help; but I am unclear of an absolute answer.

It's interesting and a bit of a conundrum.

 

[Bob]

@Firestormm, I deleted my previous post, because I realised that I didn't actually know what I was talking about.
I've got some small insights into peer review process, but not much.
Like you suggest 'inadequate', 'inexperienced' and 'inappropriate' are all value judgements.
So one person's 'inexperienced' peer reviewer might be another person's superior peer reviewer.
I haven't read anything about what an optimum peer review process would consist of, except for making the process transparent, and allowing public comment, or even allowing a public review process.
I've read an article suggesting that reviewers should be paid, because this would make the process more professional.
But where there's money there's vested interests etc.

 

[Firestormm]

@Bob yeah and someone has to pay for the peer-reviewer of course but I am more inclined towards payment. I can see that with open-access there will be more pressure on volunteers to take more time out of their day to peer-review and less time will be afforded to their own work which could impact on quality - there could be a dumbing-down effect across the industry perhaps.

Unless of course they are not actively involved in research anymore - or are on a break. I don't really know if their are qualifications for a peer-reviewer. But I generally think that quality is more likely with some form of payment - and not just quality but also that people will be more inclined to perform the function. Generally speaking of course.

For all I know peer-review may be an expected part of a scientist's/academic's tenure. It's all a bit 'masonic' really, isn't it?!

 

[user9876]

For all I know peer-review may be an expected part of a scientist's/academic's tenure. It's all a bit 'masonic' really, isn't it?!

It is an expected part of the job. The problem is not finding the reviewers but for the reviewers to find adequate time to do the work. I have known some people who just give a one line opinion whilst others carefully working through the equations in a paper to look for mistakes.

 

[Bob]

@Firestormm, yes, paying peer reviewers would professionalise the work and perhaps lead to higher standards.
A paid reviewer would be doing it full time, and there would be training involved, so it would be more systematic.
And if a professional reviewer failed to spot some obvious flaws, then they'd run the risk of losing their job, so there would be more motivation to be thorough.
So it could mean higher standards.
But I haven't read up on it much, so I'm not aware of the counter arguments.
I assume that the journals aren't keen on paying reviewers because they like the current system of using free labour.

 

[Snowdrop]

Perhaps the scientific community needs to create and publish some 'peer review' guidelines (if there is no such thing already ~ I am pretty clueless on that point).

 

[Hope123]

1) Peer reviewers are not paid. They do it because in some cases (e.g prestigious journal, they're a section editor, etc.) it is an honor. And they get to look at new research before others so doing it helps them be competitive. A problem with professional reviewers is you want people who are actively doing science and not just reviewing papers. But I can see where they could be paid per review or some other metric but they still need to be working scientists. How this would impact subscription fees, I don't know.

2) Some journals allow the paper authors to suggest who might review their paper as the authors often know who knows the area they're working in. The editors get the final say of course in who reviews.

 

[user9876]

1) Peer reviewers are not paid. They do it because in some cases (e.g prestigious journal, they're a section editor, etc.) it is an honor. And they get to look at new research before others so doing it helps them be competitive. A problem with professional reviewers is you want people who are actively doing science and not just reviewing papers. But I can see where they could be paid per review or some other metric but they still need to be working scientists. How this would impact subscription fees, I don't know.

2) Some journals allow the paper authors to suggest who might review their paper as the authors often know who knows the area they're working in. The editors get the final say of course in who reviews.

Most peer reviewers are paid just not by the journals. They are paid by the institutions they work for and it is an expected part of their job. I agree professional reviewers are not good. What is needed is a form of quality control on the review process.

Strangely the most peer reviewed thing I ever wrote was a commercial document where we suggested reviewers and the company it was produced for also had reviewers. Those from a commercial background gave the most critical and insightful reviews much more than a couple of professors.

 

[Hope123]

Most peer reviewers are paid just not by the journals. They are paid by the institutions they work for and it is an expected part of their job. I agree professional reviewers are not good. What is needed is a form of quality control on the review process.

Strangely the most peer reviewed thing I ever wrote was a commercial document where we suggested reviewers and the company it was produced for also had reviewers. Those from a commercial background gave the most critical and insightful reviews much more than a couple of professors.

In the US, the payer is not the institution. Medical researchers at least have to generate the majority of their own income, through applying for grants from foundations, government, etc. or getting pharma interested. Now the money has to be funneled through the institution and administered by it so technically it *comes* from the institution but the institution does not provide income for researchers. That is why researchers often have to spend time away from their research applying for grants and partly why it takes a while for existing projects to get completed, written up, etc. or new projects to get launched.

This model of payment is partly why I decided not to stay in the university and why the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (one of the top 5 medical foundations in the US) was created. HHMI funds only a few hundred medical researchers around the US, the cream of the crop, but it does so for several years at a time without the money tied to a specific project. Rather, it is tied to a specific person and thus allows that person time, energy, space to pursue a specific area for years. I was funded by them as a student through one of their programs.

[http://www.hhmi.org/scientists]


In terms of "required" to do peer review, it depends on the university. Acquiring tenure depends on a number of factors -- publications, research, teaching, service, etc. Peer review may be considered part of "service" but could be fulfilled through other activities also. It is voluntary; one can turn down the offer to review an article or for a specific journal. And you don't get extra time for peer review; it is fitted in among all the other activities one does. As my mentor used to say, write for the person who is reading your paper at 2AM after a long day.

 

[user9876]

In the US, the payer is not the institution. Medical researchers at least have to generate the majority of their own income, through applying for grants from foundations, government, etc. or getting pharma interested.

In terms of "required" to do peer review, it depends on the university. Acquiring tenure depends on a number of factors -- publications, research, teaching, service, etc. Peer review may be considered part of "service" but could be fulfilled through other activities also. It is voluntary; one can turn down the offer to review an article or for a specific journal. And you don't get extra time for peer review; it is fitted in among all the other activities one does. As my mentor used to say, write for the person who is reading your paper at 2AM after a long day.

I think you represent the subtleties well. I think reputations spread for those who constantly refuse to review but quite easy for a few.

Personally I disliked the academic culture of solving unimportant problems and constantly searching for grants so moved on to industrial research but in IT and not health.

 

[SOC]

People who peer review papers - a necessary part of any publication even open access articles I believe - are not paid to do so are they? So what happens if you can't find someone willing/able to peer review?

Doesn't that mean a paper isn't published? I mean a good paper might be missed if nobody is able to peer review it. So peer review relies on, what? Some sort of academic agreement that each scientist will willingly review other people's papers in the hope that his/her own will similarly get reviewed without bias.

The whole system seems to be to be in danger of overload if all papers are now to be published and require peer review - will there come a time when those who peer-review demand payment? If so, will this have a negative effect on the whole effort of open-access? Just wondering in my ignorance of the whole system.

It is an expected responsibility of all researchers who publish to, in turn, review other papers. It's one of those "other duties" like committee meetings and schmoozing with administrators that are not formal parts of the job description, but are expected of all researchers. Theoretically, if you get a reputation for refusing to review papers, journals won't publish your papers. It's a weird sort of system, with elements of an honor system -- you do it because it's a researcher's responsibility, not because anyone pays you for it or gives you any credit. It would never work in the business world.

Needless to say, this informal, unstructured, unregulated system is susceptible to manipulation by people so inclined. For example, we've been the victims of "incestuous reviewing" where people with similar research biases "review" each others' work and give glowing positive reviews of lousy research in order to increase the number of published "reviewed" papers supporting their bias.

Another weakness is that without being given payment, credit, or work time allotted for the purpose of doing paper reviews, some people only do the most cursory reviews of the papers they're given. Or they sign off without reading the paper at all. This happens especially when the supposed reviewer considers the paper writer to be an expert in the field and not in need of other people evaluating their work. I suspect a certain UK CFS/ME "expert" benefits from that sort of lazy thinking.

The system definitely needs to be improved. Let's hope this Nobel Prize winner's stance makes something positive happen in the scientific publication arena.