peer review
milhayser | January 30, 2017In the latest of a series of appointments that are poised to contravene scientific and medical consensus, Donald Trump met with anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the purpose of forming a commission on "vaccine safety." On The Pump Handle, Kim Krisberg says "Kennedy is a lawyer — not a scientist, doctor, child health expert or public health practitioner" yet Trump wants to charge him with "reviewing the safety of one of the greatest life-saving tools of the 20th century." Like Kennedy, Trump says that vaccines can cause autism, and as Orac notes on Respectful Insolence, "compared…
oracknows | December 28, 2015I've frequently noted that one of the things most detested by quacks and promoters of pseudoscience is peer review. Creationists hate peer review. HIV/AIDS denialists hate it. Anti-vaccine cranks like those at Age of Autism hate it. Indeed, as blog bud Mark Hoofnagle Mark Hoofnagle, pointed out several years ago, pseudoscientists and cranks of all stripes hate it. There's a reason for that, of course, namely that it's hard to pass peer review if you're peddling pseudoscience, although, unfortunately, with the rise of "integrative medicine," it's nowhere near as difficult as it once was.
Be…
milhayser | October 30, 2015New reporting by Inside Climate News shows that petroleum giant Exxon knew, more than thirty years ago, that burning too much fossil fuel would cause catastrophic climate change. Comparing Exxon's subsequent emphasis on profits over planetary health to the efforts of Big Tobacco hiding the dangers of cigarettes, PZ Myers writes "the future is going to look back on rabid capitalism as one of the damning pathologies of our history." Now that the wider public is accepting the fact that anthropogenic global warming will transform and could destroy our way of life, Exxon is very much on the hook.…
gregladen | August 20, 2015The academic world and its detractors are all a-tizzy about this recent news reported here:
Springer, a major science and medical publisher, recently announced the retraction of 64 articles from 10 of its journals. The articles were retracted after editors found the authors had faked the peer-review process using phony e-mail addresses.
The article goes on to say that science has been truly sullied by this event, and anti-science voices are claiming that this is the end of the peer reviewed system, proving it is corrupt. The original Springer statement is here.
See this post at Retraction…
oracknows | February 18, 2015
It often comes as a surprise to proponents of alternative medicine and critics of big pharma that I'm a big fan of John Ioannidis. Evidence of this can easily be found right here on this very blog just by entering Ioannidis' name into the search box. Indeed, my first post about an Ioannidis paper is nearly a decade old now. These posts were about one of Ioannidis' most famous papers, this one published in JAMA and entitled Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research. It was a study that suggested that at least 1/3 of highly cited clinical trials may either…
tsmith | September 25, 2014Everything old is new again. For years on this blog, I wrote about HIV denial and the few fringe scientists and journalists who espoused it. I attracted a host of trolls, some of whom repeatedly attacked my credibility, my appearance, even showed up at my academic office. One of the most prolific of these was Henry Bauer, who posts long-debunked ideas on HIV/AIDS (and the Loch Ness Monster to boot).
That was, oh, 2007-ish and prior. In that same year Steven Novella and I co-authored an article on HIV denial for PLoS Medicine. In 2008, a leader of the denial movement, Christine Maggiore of "…
esiegel | June 7, 2013"From my close observation of writers... they fall into two groups: one, those who bleed copiously and visibly at any bad review, and two, those who bleed copiously and secretly at any bad review." -Isaac Asimov
You'd never know it unless you were one of about six people in the entire world, but today is a landmark anniversary for me. Three years ago, I was on summer break from teaching at my local college, when I got an email from the Royal Astronomical Society in England.
Image credit: Royal Astronomical Society, R102/0155 Herschel's Great Telescope.
The UK-based society at the forefront…
dr. dolittle | February 11, 2013 Image from: Collectors Weekly
Ever wonder how to tell if "scientific" information that you find on the internet is believable or just plain bogus? I came across a website called Sense About Science that explains how research is published and how to determine if it is credible. They also give advice and answer questions about claimed scientific evidence.
Here is a synopsis of the scientific peer review process: After a study is conducted and data has been gathered and analyzed, scientists summarize their findings in a paper that they submit for publication to a journal. The editor of the…
drorzel | May 6, 2010There's a minor kerfuffle at the moment over the XENON experiment's early data (arxiv paper) which did not detect any dark matter in 11 days of data acquisition. This conflicts with earlier claims by the DAMA experiment and recent maybe-kinda-sorta detections by the CoGeNT and CDMA experiments.
As a result, a couple of members of other collaborations have posted a response on the arxiv saying, basically, that they don't believe the sensitivity claimed for the XENON detector in the energy range in question, and that their result can't really be said to rule out the possibility of dark matter…
jstemwedel | April 2, 2010Unlike some of my dear readers, the elder Free-Ride offspring, upon reading yesterday's post, immediately recognized it as an April Fool's Day joke. (This recognition was accompanied by only the barest hint of a smile. A mother's fine, dry wit is, apparently, an acquired taste.)
Although that post was bogus, some of its content seemed worth discussing.
Dr. Free-Ride: Do you know what peer review is?
Elder offspring: No.
Dr. Free-Ride: Do you have a guess? Do you know what a "peer" is?
Elder offspring: Yes, a friend, or anyone you work with.
Dr. Free-Ride: OK, and do you know what "review"…
jstemwedel | April 1, 2010You don't have to look far to find mutterings about the peer review system, especially about the ways in which anonymous reviewers might hold up your paper or harm your career. On the other hand, there are plenty of champions of the status quo who argue that anonymous peer review is the essential mechanism by which reports of scientific findings are certified as scientific knowledge.
So how do scientists feel about anonymous peer review? A 2008 paper in Science and Engineering Ethics by David B. Resnik, Christina Guiterrez-Ford, and Shyamal Peddada, titled "Perceptions of Ethical Problems…
jstemwedel | March 17, 2010Once again, I'm going to "get meta" on that recent paper on blogs as a channel of scientific communication I mentioned in my last post. Here, the larger question I'd like to consider is how peer review -- the back and forth between authors and reviewers, mediated (and perhaps even refereed by) journal editors -- does, could, and perhaps should play out.
Prefacing his post about the paper, Bora writes:
First, let me get the Conflict Of Interest out of the way. I am on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Science Communication. I helped the journal find reviewers for this particular…
sciencewoman | September 29, 2009In 2009, I've done ~9 reviews of journal articles, including two in the past week, and not counting the 1-2 more looming in the next two weeks. During the same period, I've submitted one 1st author manuscript, still in review, but probably only going cost 3 reviewers some time.
Anyone see a mass balance problem there? Or do y'all just see a case of a junior faculty member correctly working to build her international reputation in time for tenure? Or something else? 'Cause I'm no longer quite sure what to make of the situation. I'm dancing around the question of "How many reviews are enough?"…
bioephemera | March 19, 2009
Illustration by David Parkins, Nature
Today, Nature released a news feature by Geoff Brumfiel on the downturn in mainstream science media. We've all known that this is happening; the alarms become impossible to ignore when Peter Dysktra and his team at CNN lost their jobs last year. For mainstream outlets like CNN or the Boston Globe to cut science may seem appalling - but in an unforgiving economic climate which has already triggered the collapse of major newspapers like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, such cuts are logical, because science reporting isn't a big money-maker. The question…
scientificactivist | September 2, 2008If you've gone to ResearchBlogging.org lately, you may have noticed that it's been given a face-lift. Actually, it's more than just a face-lift, as cofounder and president Dave Munger points out, including these new features:
Multiple language support (and 30 new German-language bloggers!)
Topic-specific RSS feeds
Post-by-post tagging with topics and subtopics
"Recover password" feature
Email alerts when there is a problem with posts
Users can flag posts that don't meet our guidelines
Customized user home pages with bios and blog descriptions
Blogger photos/other images displayed with each…
scientificactivist | January 24, 2008Back in October of 2007, Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting (BPR3) was launched in order to (one day) aggregate blog posts about the scientific literature on one site and to provide a universal icon to identify posts on peer-reviewed literature. Now BPR3 version 2.0 is out, manifested as Research Blogging.org.
Go check out the new site to see what bloggers are saying about the literature. Or, better yet, register your blog, and have relevant posts feed directly onto the Research Blogging home page. In my own opinion, though, the coolest feature of the site is its citation…
scientificactivist | October 29, 2007If so, you'll be interested in today's announcement from BPR3 (Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting):
We're pleased to announce that BPR3's Blogging on Peer Reviewed Research icons are now ready to go! Anyone can use these icons to show when they're making a serious post about peer-reviewed research, rather than just linking to a news article or press release.
Within a month, these blog posts will also be aggregated here, so everyone can go to one place to locate the most serious, thoughtful analysis and commentary on the web.
But we encourage you to start using the icons now. They'…
scientificactivist | July 20, 2007I've been tagged by Hope for Pandora (who was tagged by DrugMonkey, who was tagged by Writedit) in a blog meme regarding the NIH's request for feedback on its peer review system. I'm not huge into these blog memes, so I'm not going to pass this along to seven others, but I will share a few thoughts.
Being only in the second year of my Ph.D. (and studying overseas), I haven't applied for an NIH grant before, so I'm not intimately familiar with the NIH's peer review system and can't offer much in the way of constructive criticism there. I can, however, speak generally about some of the major…
scientificactivist | November 29, 2006Anyone who has tried to replicate an experiment based on the description published in a paper knows that this can be difficult, frustrating, and often close to impossible. The protocols in the Methods section can be incomplete, even inaccurate, and sometimes lead the hopeful reader down a trail of never-ending references to previous papers, eventually arriving at a protocol only marginally related to what the reader actually set out to find.
One answer to this problem, in a few cases at least, might be a new video journal spearheaded by Moshe Pritsker, a postdoc at Harvard Medical School/…
scientificactivist | June 21, 2006Nature started it with its recently begun open peer review trial, and PLoS got on board with its own announcement of a new interactive journal, PLoS ONE. Now, The Daily Transcript reports that Cell has also joined the latest trend by allowing reader comments on some of its articles. What's the catch? Comments will only be open on one "highlighted" paper each issue. That's too bad, because I was just reading an older Cell paper today that seemed to raise more questions than it answered....
Interestingly, Alex Palazzo of The Daily Transcript raises an important point at the end of his post…