tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post3805925165085621385..comments2024-03-16T18:42:21.178-07:00Comments on DSHR's Blog: What's Wrong With Research CommunicationDavid.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-2116185640604719912012-02-05T20:10:49.822-08:002012-02-05T20:10:49.822-08:00Yves Smith links to an article in Nature discussin...<a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/links-2512.html" rel="nofollow">Yves Smith</a> links to an <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-feel-pressure-to-cite-superfluous-papers-1.9968" rel="nofollow">article in <i>Nature</i></a> discussing a paper in <i>Science</i> reporting a survey with over 6000 respondents providing evidence that journal editors are <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6068/542" rel="nofollow">gaming their journal impact factors</a> as discussed above by making self-citations a condition of acceptance.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-76417126912807011702012-02-02T10:33:14.468-08:002012-02-02T10:33:14.468-08:00A very relevant analysis of this problem as it app...A very relevant analysis of this problem as it applies to neuroscience, and a proposal for improvement, is in a paper by Kravitz & Baker discussed in <a href="http://blog.dshr.org/2012/01/mass-market-scholary-communication.html?showComment=1328090536586#c6777124576896401663" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>. Here are the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055" rel="nofollow">DOI link</a> and the <a href="http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055/abstract" rel="nofollow">link to the abstract in <i>Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience</i></a>.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-7912825412731013442011-11-09T17:14:41.355-08:002011-11-09T17:14:41.355-08:00The BMJ has published more of Brian Deer's res...The BMJ has published more of Brian Deer's <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823" rel="nofollow">research into the fraud behind the Wakefield MMR scare</a>. It implicates his co-authors in the fraud, and the <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7284" rel="nofollow">BMJ is calling for an independent review</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6979" rel="nofollow">Prof. Ingvar Bjarnason and colleagues</a> and <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6985" rel="nofollow">Prof Karel Geboes</a> examined the histology grading sheets that were the basis for a Wakefield <i>et al</i> paper that the American Journal of Gastroenterology <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.03248.x" rel="nofollow">retracted in May 2010</a>. They found no evidence of disease except constipation.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-48230825854705601752011-09-29T02:21:30.764-07:002011-09-29T02:21:30.764-07:00Dan Wallach has an interesting and well-argued pro...Dan Wallach has an interesting and well-argued proposal for <a href="http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/10/131405-rebooting-the-cs-publication-process/fulltext" rel="nofollow">transforming publication in Computer Science</a> in <i>Communications of the ACM</i>. His discussion of the problems of the current system and the ways in which his proposal addresses them is particularly valuable, especially appearing in <i>CACM</i> which is a <a href="http://blog.dshr.org/2011/03/acmieee-copyright-policy.html" rel="nofollow">representative of the current system</a>.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-5835679666200845252011-09-22T15:18:20.580-07:002011-09-22T15:18:20.580-07:00Not exactly about research communication as its ge...Not exactly about research communication as its generally thought of, but Eric Hellman has a great post on <a rel="nofollow">disrupting the business model for textbooks</a> which, if you think about it, is where research communication goes to die. He makes a powerful case for the advantages of his <a href="http://gluejar.com/" rel="nofollow">unglued e-books</a> model in the textbook space.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-34709207458177272312011-09-21T09:34:44.018-07:002011-09-21T09:34:44.018-07:00Researchers at Stanford just made a discovery and ...Researchers at Stanford just made a discovery and the <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/info/news/pulse/no346/story3.shtml" rel="nofollow">DOE announced it</a>:<br /><br />"A group of scientists recently sandwiched two non-magnetic materials together and discovered a startling result: The layer where the two materials meet has both magnetic and superconducting regions—two properties that normally can’t co-exist. Technologists have long hoped to find a way to engineer magnetism in this class of materials, called complex oxides, as a first step in developing a potential new form of computing memory for storage and processing."<br /><br />The immediate response on a mail list I'm on:<br /><br />"We discovered a material that behaves this way back around 1987, with muon spin rotation, at Brookhaven National Laboratory. We weren't able to get it published in a top=rated journal because reviewers didn't believe the results."<br /><br />You see these examples all the time.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-26789912938699105982011-09-17T13:35:50.908-07:002011-09-17T13:35:50.908-07:00Those pushing ideological agendas find the "p...Those pushing ideological agendas find the "peer-reviewed" brand very useful when applied to articles that match, and very <a href="http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/09/16/investigation-of-arctic-scientist-going-nowhere/" rel="nofollow">threatening when applied to articles that conflict with their agenda</a>. This is an expression both of its value, which this post for obvious reasons under-plays, and the risks posed by its current state of disrepair if not outright corruption.<br /><br />Tip of the hat to <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/17/1529245/Inspector-General-Investigated-For-Muzzling-Inconvenient-Science" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a>.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-5924505415073346962011-09-11T21:40:56.813-07:002011-09-11T21:40:56.813-07:00I apologize for not also linking to the study by D...I apologize for not also linking to the study by Diane Harley and Sophia Krzys Acord of Berkeley's <i>Center for the Study of Higher Education</i> entitled <a href="http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=379" rel="nofollow">PEER REVIEW IN ACADEMIC PROMOTION AND PUBLISHING: ITS MEANING, LOCUS, AND FUTURE.</a> which identifies many of the same problems as the House of Commons report. I believe this report's view of the effectiveness of peer review is somewhat complacent but its coverage of alternative forms of peer review is comprehensive and useful.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-15880507114737547922011-09-10T10:38:36.431-07:002011-09-10T10:38:36.431-07:00The Economist reports on major misconduct in cance...<i>The Economist</i> reports on <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21528593" rel="nofollow">major misconduct in cancer research at Duke</a> that was enabled by inadequate peer review. Despite both internal and external reviews, the problem was only detected by persistent and time-consuming attempts at replication at two other institutions. Just how time-consuming is revealing:<br /><br />"Dr McShane estimates she spent 300-400 hours reviewing the Duke work, while Drs Baggerly and Coombes estimate they have spent nearly 2,000 hours."<br /><br />The replicators faced difficulties both in performing and publishing their work:<br /><br />"He noted that in addition to a lack of unfettered access to the computer code and consistent raw data on which the work was based, journals that had readily published Dr Potti’s papers were reluctant to publish his letters critical of the work. Nature Medicine published one letter, with a rebuttal from the team at Duke, but rejected further comments when problems continued."<br /><br />In the end, failure by at least two teams to replicate the results was not enough to discredit the work. That had to wait for <i>Cancer Letter</i> to notice obvious lies in documents and grant applications. One of the replicators commented:<br /><br />"I find it ironic that we have been yelling for three years about the science, which has the potential to be very damaging to patients, but that was not what has started things rolling."<br /><br />Even had they had the resources needed to characterize the problems, the internal and external review committees also faced other difficulties:<br /><br />"the internal committees responsible for protecting patients and overseeing clinical trials lacked the expertise to review the complex, statistics-heavy methods and data produced by experiments involving gene expression."<br /><br />"The review committee, however, had access only to material supplied by the researchers themselves, and was not presented with either the NCI’s exact concerns or the problems discovered by the team at the Anderson centre."<br /><br />A board of the Institute of Medicine is investigating, but some points seem clear. Like the Wakefield case, the misconduct was driven by financial conflicts of interest:<br /><br />"potential financial conflicts of interest declared by Dr Potti, Dr Nevins and other investigators, including involvement in Expression Analysis Inc and CancerGuide DX, two firms to which the university also had ties."<br /><br />It was covered up by the fact that the raw data, and details of the methods, were not published. And it was prolonged by the refusal of journals to publish refutations of previous papers.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-26480899146040065182011-09-10T08:47:30.677-07:002011-09-10T08:47:30.677-07:00Great post DSHR!
I also recently started blogging ...Great post DSHR!<br />I also recently started blogging on this topic. The "investment" in site licenses is foolish and universities should end it. I am covering my perspective in a series of blogs at http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com<br />Currently, four blogs on this topic, working on more.<br />--Eric.Eric F. Van de Veldehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12691770734527503360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4503292949532760618.post-1181724244493074632011-09-03T11:04:03.946-07:002011-09-03T11:04:03.946-07:00The problems of the publishers' business model...The problems of the publishers' business models are a hot topic right now, especially in <i>The Guardian</i>. They featured <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist" rel="nofollow">George Monbiot</a> weighing in and now <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/bad-science-academic-publishing" rel="nofollow">Ben Goldacre</a> commenting on his piece.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niyYWVa2w6w" rel="nofollow">Dr. Frances Pinter (YouTube)</a>, the founder of Bloomsbury Press, asks how to make library budgets go further in the academic book market? Her suggestion is that a worldwide consortium of libraries should pay for the fixed costs, and get in return an online Creative Commons licensed version. The publisher could sell print and e-books. The idea is interesting, but the problem is that the libraries paying the fixed costs don't actually end up owning anything. Combining this with the LOCKSS system, enabled by the Creative Commons license, would allow the libraries to add these books to their electronic collections.<br /><br />This mismatch between the marketing power of Elsevier and the librarians is well illustrated by this YouTube video of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7vLWvTQzo0" rel="nofollow">librarians thanking Elsevier for hosting a party in Petco Park</a> as part of the ALA meeting. They seem to be blissfully ignorant that every penny Elsevier is spending on the party comes straight out of their cash-strapped budgets.David.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14498131502038331594noreply@blogger.com