Science Education Journal

Last evening I attended a panel discussion entitled, “Making the Web work for Science” hosted by Science Commons. It was held at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and moderated by Tim O’Reilly. On the panel were Jimmy Wales,  founder of Wikipedia; Stephen Friend, MD, PhD President, CEO and a Co-Founder of Sage; and John Wilbanks, VP of Science at Creative Commons.

While I was hoping more would be discussed on modeling the habits of researchers with web tools, the focus on Open Science was still a good conversation. At one point, Dr. Friend mentioned the need to publish negative results. With the ability to inexpensively self-publish and distribute data on the Web, why then, aren’t we seeing more of this?

Trying to answer from my own experience as a researcher, there are at least three reasons, or rather fears: Read the rest of this entry »

Peer review: Reputable scientific journals have a peer review process to ensure that published papers are free of errors in reasoning and methodology and that they report only the best research. Upon submission of a paper, the editor of the journal removes the name of the authors and sends it to expert researchers to be reviewed. The names of the authors are kept confidential by the editor to ensure that the author’s reputation, past personal differences, or factors other than the quality of the work cannot affect the review. The editor of the journal considers the reports of the reviewers and decides whether the paper should be published or returned to the author for corrections. Few papers receive outright rejection and the papers returned for correction are usually returned with reviewers comments.

The names of the reviewers are kept confidential by the editor to ensure that the author does not directly contact the reviewer to argue or does not retaliate against a reviewer. In a recent case, John Christy was able to discover through the stolen CRU e-mails who reviewed one of his papers and why the editor published it as he did. The paper was controversial in nature and contained opinions not held by most other climate scientists. The editor, in an attempt to present both sides of the issue, published Christy’s paper alongside a paper that presented the opposite view. Using information to which he should not have been entitled, Christy publicly attacked the reviewers, the editor, the peer review process, and climate science in general. His actions violated the integrity of the process and also the professional ethics required of scientists as he released his opinions to the public before the matter could be impartially investigated.

The Public’s Rights: The claims that the names of the reviewers and the editor’s reasons should be made public are invalid. Scientific journals are funded by subscriptions and dues of members and not publicly funded. The review process is set up as it is to ensure the integrity of published science papers and “peer reviewed” is the gold standard of quality in science information. The editor of the journal has the right to choose the reviewers and decide what is published just as the editor of a newspaper has the right to publish or reject articles without divulging the reasons.

Read the rest of this entry »