Whenever I've reviewed a paper for publication, I always remind myself that I don't want to be the guy who reads only the good 75% of the paper, and skips over the 25% that contains some egregious error or insane reasoning. Apparently not everyone thinks that.
A paper recently published in the journal Proteomics may have been read by such individuals. It addresses endosymbiosis, and apparently contains a lot of seemingly appropriate and "correct" text (though it turns out much of this is plagiarized), but it also contains brief passages asserting the idea that the origin and role of mitochondria were determined by an intelligent designer. Oops.
The best review of this manano can be found Pharyngula, by PZ Myers, but it is being discussed all over the internet.
I only want to add two comments. The first, presaged by the title of the post is this: I do wonder if the possibility of making a major goof ... in this case all of the reviewers skipping the same passages because they found the process of reviewing the paper boring or were otherwise preoccupied, and allowing a startlingly bad product through the process ... is a major benefit, if not the reason for, anonymity in peer reviewing. In this case, we would all like to know the names of the reviewers, so we can either expose them as charlatans or Trojan Horses, or at least embarrass and belittle them, effectively tarring and feathering them, to make an example that will not be forgotten for a long, long time.
My other comment: Is it possible that this entire thing is a joke? I mean, really. The ideas presented in this paper do not exactly conform to an Intelligent Design (ala the Discover Institute) paradigm. It seems to fit more closely with the concept of The Force. The authors of this paper are either Star Wars fans making a big funny, or deluded crazy people who think Star Wars is real. This is probably not true, but it may be worth investigating.
Now, since I've mentioned key aspects of a Peer Reviewed research paper, does this mean that I get to use the Blogging on Peer Reviewed research icon and link?
- Log in to post comments
I'm no big fan of Star Wars, but have seen the movie, and I don't recall Ben Kenobi talking about the Mighty Creator?
But I'd still like to see an admission by one of the reviewers, did they genuinely miss the phrase, or did they discard the creator suggestion as a minor irrelevance? They must be able to publish this clarification anonymously.
Now, wonder if there is an icon for "commenting on blogging on peer reviewed research"
The first reason - that if you screw up, no one but the editor knows who you are - was very important the first few times I reviewed a manuscript.
Sounds like a weird self-destructive twist on the Sokal Hoax, but probably just incompetence.
Actually, I see this entire episode as a good reason that peer review should be open. Reviewers should not be able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, neither for unjust trashing of good work nor for approving "mighty creator" arguments.
It's hard to believe the paper would get by the reviewers and editors of a reputable journal. One possibility is that a copy editor inserted the offending passages into the manuscript at the very last minute, just before it was published online as a PDF. It could've been a joke on their part, or perhaps an earnest attempt at ID-type arguments.
R N B -- not the Mighty Creator, but in that truly awful prequel, don't you remember the "midichlorians"? There are uncanny echoes in the paper....
But no, I don't think it's a joke, or a deliberate hoax. I think it's genuine crazy.