John submitted a paper that proclaimed a new wonder drug. He set up the paper with a simple formula: “Molecule X from lichen species Y inhibits the growth of cancer cell Z.” He substituted each variable with molecules, lichens, and cancer cell lines to create hundreds of papers. Each was unique enough to not attract attention, but the structure was similar enough to be used as a constant in John’s investigation. He submitted the paper using false names and institutions that he generated randomly from databases of common African names, words in Swahili, and African capital cities.
He included the same flaws in each paper – data that showed the opposite of his conclusions, an obvious lapse in the methods, and a control group that didn’t receive one of the constant level of radiation as the others.
Over 150 open access journals accepted the fake paper. John writes that over 250 of his papers went through an editing process, but that 60% showed no sign of peer review.
The final verdict is that open access journals have a long way to go. There may in fact be some merits to the peer-review system…even if you have to pay to get in.
- “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” Shakes Up Scientific Community, by Poncie Rutsch , BUNewsService, October 8, 2013.
2. In the United States, some basic biomedical and clinical research is funded by private companies and investors. But much of it is funded by the NIH with government money. That raises the question of whether that money is being spent on research that is worthwhile for the population as a whole, whether it finds cures and uncovers the causes of disease. “Is the NIH still funding the path-breaking research that is likely to be influential?” asks Leila Agha, an economist at Boston University and a coauthor on the study. “In high-level applications, can [peer review] distinguish the best research?”
【Peer review】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-08-28
2020-08-21
2020-08-19
2020-08-14
2020-08-12