jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions
Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?
(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here’s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”
This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.”
While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.
"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,” he writes. “These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.”

jtotheizzoe:

The trouble with retractions

Retractions of scientific papers are up 10-fold, but publishing rates are only up by 44%. What gives? Why is so much research being pulled back, or worse, declared fraudulent?

(via Nature News)

The FJP: Here’s a potential answer for you. It comes courtesy of an article in The Register about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project that we Tumbled earlier today. In it, Richard Muller, the project lead, discusses that science needs to be more open in its publishing practices.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”

This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.”

While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.

"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published,” he writes. “These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world.”

122 notes

Show

  1. dance-lynchburg reblogged this from jtotheizzoe
  2. massage-lynchburg reblogged this from jtotheizzoe
  3. arlana-fong reblogged this from jtotheizzoe
  4. weddingphotographersdublin reblogged this from futurejournalismproject
  5. coretypelab reblogged this from tipotyppotypography and added:
    Sam Hutch
  6. greatmindsofscience reblogged this from jtotheizzoe
  7. that-guy-james reblogged this from discoverynews
  8. jtotheizzoe posted this

Blog comments powered by Disqus