Week 4: Publishing & Communcation problems Flashcards
Common misconception regarding scientific publishing?
‘Scientists get paid for published work’ This is incorrect.
Scientist have to pay to get there work published.
It is common to pay a fee – for colour, you pay for open access, length of article, number of authors etc Severe limitation for people from underfunded labs
The process of publication:
Why is science published?
Give three examples of why informing/educating the public is important
Most research I publicly funded, there public have right to the information
Duty to inform/correct bad information
- CSI effect
- Fluoride in Florida
- L’aquila earthquake
Publications are how scientists are measured: this is the product of a Scientist
What is the CSI effect?
After CSI became a populer show, the legal industry noticed that jury trials were going badly. Prosecutors were not getting convictions on obviously guilty verdicts “well they didn’t have the same evidence as they produce on CSI – not enough forensics”
In reality forensics isn’t used very often
What is the Florida fluoride controversy?
Fluoride is found in drinking water. Since the 1930s almost all drinking water supplies have had fluoride added to it in most developed countries. This has been of controversy for nearly 90 years. In the early 20th century we began to add fluoride to water because it was considered a miracle preventative to tooth decay – people who couldn’t afford to see the dentist – would not need to go because of the water with fluoride added in it 10 or 15 years – the controversies and conspiracies came out there has never been a side effect from water. The only side effect is that in some children in there children’s teeth they may get some white dots – which is extra enamel. It was labelled a communist conspiracy – when communism lost its fear factor effect in the US it was replaced by new conspiracies began to arise. Most recently in October 2011 in Florida, there was a vote to eliminate fluoride water supplies, why? Because the voting commissioner was beset that “my citizens who viewed water fluoridation as an unnecessary, even malevolent form of government intervention” according to an article in the Tampa bay Times some accused the board of trying to medicate them into submission some warned that it was a Nazi based policy designed to kill off the undesirables. Some claimed that there ailments stemmed from the drinking water. One mother described it as “terrorism” Fluoride… in your drinking water which, as far as we know, has done nothing but improve teeth decay rates. They took fluoride outside the drinking water. This is a case of complete public miscommunication – scientists have a duty to try and change those kinds of things. Climate change, land management – scientists have a duty to convey information to public.
What happen to scientist who failed to predict the L’Aquila earth quake in 2009?
Earth quakes took place In 2009 there was a massive earthquake – the scientists were convicted of man slaughter. They were accused of not informing the public, and they went to jail – for not warning the public strenuously A trial, which lasted from September 2011 until October 2012, found six scientists and a former government official guilty of involuntary manslaughter. According to the prosecution, they had spread “inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory” statements after preliminary tremors could be felt on the days before 6 April 2009. While scientists were found guilty for failing to give adequate warning.
The risk in making public statements?
What is the risk?
There is a risk in making public statements, example L’Aquila – but scientists are asked to give their opinion on things, however people will assume a certain level of authority in what you say, this could lead to misunderstanding
How are academics measured?
REF (Research excellence framework) – once every 7 years, evaluation of academics and universities, measured on 3 things (1 is grant income – but also Impact Factors and Publication Rate)
What happens to rejections? Where to papers then go?
Dr Elizabeth Clare likes to call this ‘the publication river’
Calcagno et al. 2012 Surveyed 932 biology journals for two years, looking at 80,748 articles histories (37% response rate) What was found?
*75% of articles are published in the first journal they are submitted too. *Higher impact journals are frequently first choices by authors, authors move from high to low impact, higher impact journals tend to publish more resubmitted articles *Higher impact is in the middle, you try to move it between the highest ranked journals.
Impact factors guide submissions
Higher impact journals publish fewer first submission articles, Nature and Science attract highest impact
Most papers are subjected to single or double blind review What is a single-blind review?
reviewer knows who they are reviewing, but the scientist doesn’t know the reviewer
Why does the reviewer wish to be anonymous?
Well if someone writes a critical review they may not want the scientist to know, to avoid facing retribution. Younger academics are more likely to remain anonymous, whereas a senior academic will sign it because there careers are more well established.
What are open reviews?
Everybody is known to everybody else – corruption can enter into the system
Corruption can enter peer review. Give three examples:
2011 Nature reviews drug discovery reported that 2/3 of 67 key papers (2008-2010) had results that could not be duplicated. 2012 35 papers retracted from Journal of Enzyme inhibition and medical chemistry immunopharmacology and immunotaxicology due to fake e-mail address rings. July 8th 2014 60 papers retracted from the Journal of Vibrational Control base on corrupted review and a review ring. A reviewer name, is when somebody registers with different names and emails in the circle. So you can register name 10 times, with 10 different pseudonyms, then journal article submitted – when editor asks can you suggest reviewers, the scientist would suggest themselves under the pseudonym names.
Gaming the system How were they discovered?
Reviews coming back within a couple of hours – ludicrous
Irreproducible results What are the most common issues?
- Poor experimental design 2. Emphasis on making provocative statements 3. Don’t report basic elements of design 4. Secret sauce effect (waiting for patent approval) 5. Academy member effect; you can get a member of the academy to communicate their paper for them (shut down)
Open access Data In genetics we must deposit all DNA data in a public repository.
ONLY geneticists are required to put their raw data somewhere it can be found – this is changing. Partly because of the problems we are seeing in some papers. Limitations to this DNA is not raw data – as it is an interpretation of what comes off a sequencer but it is as raw as we normally get.
Dryad – if you publish an article in something like Molecular Ecology…
…they will insist that all raw data are produced into Dryad – there are cases for safety restrictions
Public library of science policy
added as supplements to articles, lack of data has led to costly (suspected) fraud
What are open access papers?
this is an internet invention, it has two effects democratizing science or fraud? Open access is a resource for everyone, and anybody can read it – you don’t have to have a uni access. Normally you pay a heavy fee for this – it makes it a resource for everyone – online only model – some funders ONLY want open access = higher impact
Predatory publishers -
Pay for access model – reviewers and editors are volunteers – but money needs to be generated for business side this has led too
Jeffery Beall’s story
librarian he gets asked to join an editorial board, this is a prestigious request. There are BAD requests! Beall’s list - made a list of publishing companies that he didn’t believer were real – they contact scientists asking them to publish the article to there journal and then they publish it They don’t have peer review they are just making money of scientists desperate to publish there work Academics get emails every day
Beall’s list
he has research publishing companies that he determined are predatory – of the them is - OMICS runs thousands of journal publishing companies and organises conferences, arguably they are huge frauds. He published their name and they sued him for 3 million dollars for slander.
Plenty of case studies for OMICS doing bad things
Entomology - 2013 one of the most prominent conferences (Entomology 2013), many people registered thinking it’s the one without “–“ Identity fraud, they have cases against them from PubMed
Who is afraid of peer review?
Experiment in peer review – scientist generated papers with clearly inaccurate and submitted it to journal publications. 157 accepted – MOST places he submitted it too took it immediately (in the open access world) only 97 rejected it. Rule of thumb any journal that contacts you – isn’t a good one
Open access problem – this has become a huge business
Good in making science publically available – but has a bad side
What is Professional Editing?
Nature will edits your article for a cost – BUT – not guarantee that you will be published Many private companies that will edit reformat and reanalyse your data for you English langue translation services, publication language is almost always English, many times recommended linguistic assistance
