JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  October 2013

CCP4BB October 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: OT: "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?"

From:

Miguel Ortiz Lombardía <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Miguel Ortiz Lombardía <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:11:41 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (215 lines)

Ciao Roberto,

I'm sure the current research system works better in some fields than in
others. It depends on a number of factors, perhaps the more important of
them the amount of publications produced. Or it may be as we say in
Spain: everybody talks about the party according to how much fun is
having :-)

Agreed that peer-reviewing is a continuous, endless process. But can we
afford relying on the cleverness of the next generation to carry out our
present work and mend our present problems? That's why I tried to make
the distinction between peer-reviewing and really existing
peer-reviewing. In some fields the latter may get closer to the former,
sure. You assume that papers are read beyond their title, abstract and
conclusions, that they are read critically and understood, that when
flaws or reproducibility problems are found these are reported, that
those reports are ever widely registered by the community. All that
happens, fortunately, and more likely when the paper is a "big one". But
how often does it happen, especially in "hot" fields that produce
hundreds or thousands of papers a year? Because science is not only
about "big papers", or is it? So, is really existing peer-reviewing
actually helping separate grain from straw? How often papers acceptance
or rejection depend on factors that have hardly anything to do with science?

Again, I don't think that these problems, if they exist and are not a
product of the imagination of some of us, can be solved by simply
improving the peer-reviewing procedures.

Cheers,

Miguel Ortiz Lombardía

Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR7257)
CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université
Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France
Tel: +33(0) 491 82 86 44
Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia

Le 10/10/13 08:16, Steiner, Roberto a écrit :
> Many (more) reviewers ???? - [panic on Roberto's face] 
> Isn't real peer-review just a question of standing the test of time? 
> A piece of work blatantly wrong will sooner or later be picked up by someone (although I acknowledge that wrong papers can have serious consequences on one's ability to 
> get funding).  Limitations on a piece of research due to whatever reason will be hopefully lessened by other authors or the next generation(s) of scientists. 
> Overall, I don't think the current system is really that bad. 
> 
> Cheers
> Roberto
> 
> On 10 Oct 2013, at 06:57, miguel <[log in to unmask]>
>  wrote:
> 
>> (Sorry if you get this twice. The first time as marked as junk by our email server. Well, it may be junk after all...)
>>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> Impact factor is the last refuge of the publishing system as it is.
>> Precisely because in this ocean of untrusted publications we tend to
>> believe that high impact factor journals deserve our respect. This is
>> more or less all right: among those who have investigated the issue some
>> are more pessimistic than others about the quality of papers published
>> in those journals. Yet, it is hard to believe that their papers are
>> generally worse than those of not-so-high impact factor journals. But
>> from a scientific point of view, taking into account the evolution of
>> research and publishing, the trust that we give to high impact journals
>> is, in my opinion, wishful thinking.
>>
>> Concerning peer-reviewing, I don't think that adding more opacity will
>> help. On the contrary. What I believe, but I don't have any proof of it,
>> is that peer-reviewing is useful only if it is more transparent, engages
>> in a real scientific discussion (understood as a conversation, not as an
>> exchange of messages separated by weeks) and is open to (many) more
>> reviewers. But that alone will not help if the way research is done does
>> not evolve at the same time.
>>
>> On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:56:32 -0700, Marco Lolicato wrote:
>>> Hi scientists,
>>> this interesting topic brought back to my mind a similar discussion I
>>> had with a colleague of mine and now I want to share it with you guys.
>>> As Vale already pointed out, the peer-review process seems to be far
>>> from an ideal system: there are many papers in which one of the author
>>> is himself the editor of the journal in which the paper is published;
>>> the impact factor of a journal is becoming the "only" way to judge the
>>> quality of a paper (and of the authors) [example:  one of the European
>>> Commission grants has as mandatory eligibility criterium that the
>>> applicant should have at least one paper published in a "high IF
>>> journal"...I'm asking...Why?].
>>> I have also the suspect (from my insignificant experience) that some
>>> papers are accepted in really high IF journals without a clear
>>> peer-review process, but basing the decision mostly on the authors
>>> listed in that paper.
>>> Anyway, for those reasons and more, I was wondering if maybe is
>>> nowadays needed to revisit the peer-review process. One thing that
>>> immediately came out was: the authors of a papers should be hidden to
>>> both the reviewers and the editors, so that paper will be judged only
>>> on the intrinsic quality and not from the names on it or from the
>>> country.
>>>
>>> I'm looking forward to see your opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno 09/ott/2013, alle ore 15.00, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi denizens,
>>>>
>>>> Now that Biology has gone missing, at least in the programs of the
>>>> funding agencies in this part of the world, the reflections that I'm
>>>> going to expose concern at best that even smaller field of natural
>>>> philosophy that we euphemistically call, not without a twist of candour,
>>>> "biomedicine". At worst, they only concern the world whose limits are
>>>> the limits of my language.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the main purpose of really existing peer-reviewing
>>>> is to act as a filter. By selecting those papers deemed publishable it
>>>> spares us the herculean task of reading every possible piece emanating
>>>> from our overheated brains. This actually reveals a big problem of
>>>> really existing research (with the caveat expressed in the first
>>>> paragraph). But I'm not going to venture into that problem: more clever
>>>> minds have drowned in its muddy waters. Back to the point, if the need
>>>> of publishing were not such a strong source of inspiration and we
>>>> researchers would feel the compelling necessity of publishing only when
>>>> we could write well-structured and thoughtful papers, full of useful
>>>> data and rich in new ideas and hypotheses, we could then read a
>>>> reasonable percentage of the papers concerning our fields of interest.
>>>> In that utopia, peer-reviewing could be a continuous, transparent and
>>>> open process that would involve a relevant part of the community. Not
>>>> likely to happen and probably for good: knowledge seems to progress by a
>>>> combination of slow accretion of small steps and sudden
>>>> (re)interpretations of those steps.
>>>>
>>>> But what is interesting to see in that utopian/dystopian possibility is
>>>> that really existing peer-reviewing suffers from a fundamental problem:
>>>> statistical significance. Because, what significance is to be deposited
>>>> in the opinions, whether reasonably argued or not (another thorny
>>>> Pandora box I won't dare to open), of two, three or at best four people
>>>> acting as editors or reviewers? Anonymous people in the latter case, to
>>>> complete the scene.
>>>>
>>>> In the tension between these requirements trust is suppose to build up
>>>> and give us a reasonable path to pursue our noble endeavours. In my
>>>> insignificant opinion, in the current state of matters, trust is
>>>> seriously broken. Too much pressure to publish, too many journals, too
>>>> much money to make from publishing, too restricted and opaque a
>>>> peer-reviewing system... As a corollary, my impression is that while
>>>> many of us suspect we live in a bubble, we all seem to tacitly expect
>>>> that we will not see it explode. A good friend of mine once offered me a
>>>> book about the Spanish Armada; no joke. Its title was "The confident
>>>> hope of a miracle".
>>>>
>>>> To rebuild trust we need, among other things, to rebuild our tools. And
>>>> we better do it before the next big bang. Research is not the only human
>>>> activity involving knowledge and its transmission, we could use some
>>>> curiosity beyond our noses.
>>>>
>>>> Vale.
>>>>
>>>> Miguel Ortiz Lombardía
>>>>
>>>> Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR7257)
>>>> CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université
>>>> Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France
>>>> Tel: +33(0) 491 82 86 44
>>>> Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia
>>>>
>>>> El 09/10/13 20:04, Navdeep Sidhu escribió:
>>>>> John Bohannon wrote about his experience writing "a computer program to generate hundreds of unique papers." Thought some of you might find it of interest:
>>>>>
>>>>> John Bohannon. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342 (Oct. 4, 2013) 60-65.
>>>>> DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60
>>>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Navdeep
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Navdeep Sidhu
>>>>> University of Goettingen
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Miguel
>>
>> Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR7257)
>> CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université
>> Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France
>> Tel: +33(0) 491 82 55 93
>> Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: http://w2.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia
> 
> Roberto A. Steiner
> Group Leader
> Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics
> King's College London
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> Room 3.10A
> New Hunt's House
> Guy's Campus
> SE1 1UL
> London
> 
> Phone 0044 20 78488216
> Fax    0044 20 78486435
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager