Highlights from the scientific publishing world in October

2nd Nov 2013

A summary of the key things I have learned this month via Twitter: stings, harrassment and post-publication peer review.

You may have noticed that this blog is not updated very often, but that my Twitter feed is updated several (sometimes many) times a day. I have decided to to bring some highlights of this Twitter activity to my blog, so that those of you who (for some strange reason) aren’t on Twitter can get the benefit of all the interesting things I learn there every day. Of course, this summary will focus on scientific publishing and related fields. This may become a regular blog feature.

The biggest news early in October was the ‘sting’ published in Science by John Bohannon, which showed that some disreputable journals will accept even an obviously bad fake paper. There have been many, many posts and articles about this, which are listed in Zen Faulkes (@doctorzen)’s list. A few I found most insightful are:

  • A pair of two posts by @neurobonkers, the first giving a good overview and the second classifying the journals included in the sting into those that accepted or rejected the fake paper with or without peer review.
  • This post by journal editor Gunther Eysenbach, who rejected the paper. He says “It is foolish to extrapolate these findings of a few black sheep publishers and scammers… to an entire industry. This would be as logical as concluding from Nigerian wire fraud emails that all lawyers who take a fee-for-service are scammers!”
  • The suggestion by Zen Faulkes that the fake paper could be a good resource for teaching how to write a paper.

Then there was the big scandal around sexual harassment in the science writing community, which has now led to the resignation of Scientific American’s blog editor, Bora Zivovic. An overview in the Guardian science blog by Alice Bell (@alicebell) gives the low-down and this post by Jennifer Ouellette (@JenLucPiquant) is one of the more insightful on the issues.

And then PubMed launched a commenting system, PubMed Commons. This is so important that I am going to blog about it separately.

A few other interesting things:

  • The Economist published a special series of articles on science, including a long overview of the issues, including the problem of reproducing results and publishing replications, important statistical issues, fraud, retractions and peer review (including the Science sting).
  • This post by Pat Thomson (@thomsonpat) drives home the importance of the ‘take home message’ in your paper.
  • I was directed to this amazing comprehensive guide to making a conference poster, by Colin Purrington, by @deevybee and others.
  • Open Access Week ran from 21 to 27 October. The most notable related article was in the Guardian by Peter Suber: Open access: six myths to put to rest.
  • The Chemistry journal ACS Nano published an editorial suggesting that allegations of fraud in a paper should be dealt with in private by the journal concerned, not discussed openly on blogs. Blogger Paul Bracher (@ChemBark) disagrees.

Tags: 

Leave a Reply