Nature feature on The peer-review scam

[MargaritaMc]

I just thought this was interesting to know about, from the current edition of Nature. (Not paywalled)

Publishing: The peer-review scam
When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

M

[owlice]

Margarita, are you familiar with Retraction Watch? You might like it (in a "horrified-this-goes-on" kind of way!).

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/25/p ... r-reviews/

[MargaritaMc]

Margarita, are you familiar with Retraction Watch? You might like it (in a "horrified-this-goes-on" kind of way!).

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/25/p ... r-reviews/

Thanks, owlice. It is new to me and has my innocent little mind gawping!
The phrase "peer-reviewed" doesn't have the same ring of confidence any more. What astounded me was that journals actually asked for suggestions for reviewers from people submitting papers. I know I'm innocent, but I'm not that gullible.

M

[owlice]

Margarita, retractions happen... that should be of some comfort!

It doesn't surprise me that journals ask for recommendations; some immediately strike the recommended people from the list for the submitted paper, but that helps expand their list of possible reviewers for future papers. Reviewing (good reviewing) takes a lot of time and is uncompensated; it can be hard to find reviewers.

Do you know about predatory journals? http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ You may find this amusing. And there are bogus conferences, too, set up just to line the pockets of the promoters.

[Chris Peterson]

Margarita, retractions happen... that should be of some comfort!

The importance of this point is frequently overlooked. Science still works. When bad science or fraud is detected, it is challenged. When systemic errors (like the peer review issue discussed here) are identified, they are made public and solutions are sought. The self-correction mechanism is still present. The system attempts to improve itself. That is not typical for systems outside of science.

[MargaritaMc]

. Reviewing (good reviewing) takes a lot of time and is uncompensated; it can be hard to find reviewers.

Yes, my husband and colleagues have always spoken of reviewing as one of life's onerous duties when one is a research scientist.

You may find this amusing.

THAT is hilarious! *

M

* So is this. It's a link from the comment section there

[MargaritaMc]

The self-correction mechanism is still present. The system attempts to improve itself. That is not typical for systems outside of science.

That's an important point, Chris. And wouldn't it be good if such a self correcting mechanism were in place for, say, the press or politics?
I'm just pondering ... do any other areas (law? medicine?) have an effective and active self-monitoring and correcting system? This isn't a rhetorical question, I have just realised that I don't know.