Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad

Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, The Scientist reveals a curious and probably unique story. Two years ago, a researcher at Brown University submitted a paper to a scientific medicine journal. Then he received a note from the editor saying that his paper would not interest the journal readers. Thinking that his article was unfairly rejected before peer review, he decided to publish a two-page ad with the contents of his paper in the same journal. He even asked readers if they thought the contents interesting and received 33 positive replies. Read this summary before telling me what you think and if you've heard about a similar story."

Comments

such a nice move

[muzik4machines]

he did such a great move, proof that money is the key

just some thoughts....

[Neitokun]

if this cancer 'only' effects 1 to 2 million people, why would it be of major intrest in a publication like this?

Re:just some thoughts....

[Otter]

In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.

Here's an analogy to what he did: let's say you read something in your local newspaper that you think is improperly argued. You write up your objection and ask the New York Times to run it as a bylined piece. They return it and tell you to try it as a letter to the editor in the newspaper that ran the original story.

The guy isn't facing total suppression of his work by The Man; he's insisting on publishing it in a far more prestigious form than any reasonable person could think it warrants.

Re:just some thoughts....

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, he is facing that suppression. The journal editor said that if he'd known it was being published as an ad, he'd have canceled it. Despite the standard ethical journalism policy of separating editors from publishers (ad managers), to prevent bias of editors by knowing who's paying the rent. It's not clear, from the tiny initial coverage in this Slashdot story, whether the editor can "fix" that "oversight" in the future, or whether that policy will continue to protect that avenue of publication.

As for the reasonable prestige this study warrants, why do you agree with the editor that the story is "uninteresting"? The Dow study, which exonerated Dow in the statistically impossible cancer rate among their asbestos-exposed workers, was interesting enough to publish. This paper not only contradicts that self-interested result, but establishes clearly suggests a causal relationship between the asbestos and the cancer. Which would be of high interest to readers of a journal of occupational and environmental medicine. Why not?

approach

[phloydphreak]

The intersting point in the 'The Scientist' article is Egilman's (advertisment placer's) approach to a system which he considers to be corrupt. from TA: the JOEM "(has)indirect ties to Dow Chemical and its strategic partner, GlaxoSmithKline}. By posting his article as an advertisement, Egilman bypassed a system of information suppression. His motives were not for fame or glory, but to publish material to those who are interested and have a say in such issues. I for one give Egilman a thumbs up. Very insightful approach to the problem.

Re:approach

[Otter]

Since you're the only person commenting on the subject, I'll stick my points here:

1) Peer review is there to determine scientific correctness, not whether a paper should be published or not. There is nothing inappropriate about editorial prescreening for fit and impact -- otherwise the peer review system would be overrun. This manuscript was a criticism of a paper in a different, obscure journal and it's not in the least surprising that it was rejected before review. It should have been submitted as an unreviewed letter to the original journal.

2) Any additional exposure his paper may have gained through this stunt is more than balanced out by the fact that Egilman will now permanently be known in the field as "the nut who ran his stupid letter as an advertisement".

3) The "indirect ties" thing is ludicrous. Anyone who works in a field has "indirect ties" of that degree. Egilman, as I said, is a paranoid nut but the real idiot here is the editor at International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health who used this as an opportunity to throw dirt at a competitor. As though his journal has never rejected a paper about which a similarly far-fetched conspiracy theory could have been made.

No Story...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

So a magazine chooses not to publish an article, the author than pays to publish it in the same magazine, and a few people tell him it's interesting. Maybe I just don't get it, because to me there is no story here. Or at least not much of a story.

Another Roland Piquepaille special!

[WasterDave]

Because of Slashdot's famously high editorial standards, another Piquepaille blog plug gets popped onto the front page.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another few hundred links that may actually be of interest to nerds and that may actually matter go rotting in the submission queue.

Jesus wept. What have we done to deserve this?

Dave

Re:33 replies of Interesting....

[PsiPsiStar]

This guy wasn't rejected after peer review, though. He didn't choose to skip peer review. He was rejected because his research "wasn't interesting."

This is what he was protesting, I think.

If he had been rejected after peer review, it would have been a different story.

Roland Piquepaille

[sahrss]

Screw that: Another Roland Piquepaille article.

Slashdot IS a damn troll itself, for continuing to post that lamer's blog plugs. I am going to actively begin searching out another tech site with comments; I like a lot of the comments here at /., but the editors SUCK.

Re:ahhhh!!!!!!!

[NanoGator]

" keeps posting your non-stories reflects extremely poorly on the status of any journalistic integrity /. claims to have."

Where does Slashdot claim to have any journalistic integrity?

Re:ahhhh!!!!!!!

[QuantumFTL]

I agree that Roland's "stories" have got to stop - but is there anything we can do to further this end? (and I don't mean hack/ddos his site, although I'm surprised that hasn't happenned yet). I'm all for complaining when things suck, but seriously is there anything we *CAN* do to stop this? Maybe a firefox plugin that filters Roland out?

I know that the editors don't actually read the site - the dupes pretty much prove that - but seriously, I'm paying for this site. I made a choice to subscribe, before Roland came around. Slashdot has had it's moments but seriously... Come on guys!

Re:ahhhh!!!!!!!

[deglr6328]

Outlets which publish interviews with leaders in the science and tech fields, book reviews, editorials and politics commentary generally need some kind of integrity, else why would anyone give any credence to their publication? Why read it at all? The journalistic integrity is implicit. Let me be clear, I think /. is still a great place. I really love the fact that there is a place where I can submit articles I think are cool and that I think others here will be interested in and then see insightful and fascinating comments on those articles that I never would've previously considered. That's one of the things that makes /. great. The other thing is the readership here and its unusually high level of genuine curiosity and intelligence. Some say this has declined over the years but I don't really see that too much. Exhibit A in this case is the person who posted a reply to my comment (just below your reply) he is QuantumFTL. He has, among other things, been generous enough to post stories and comments on the mars rover project from his inside viewpoint at JPL where he works. I think that is pretty damn cool and very nice of him. THAT is what this community should be about (and for the most part largely still IS about), sharing cool stuff with everyone else here; that's what makes it great. Roland, on the other hand exploits and dupes his readers into clicking links in his stories not because he wants to contribute anything of value (a mere glance at his site reveals it to be simply regurgitated press releases with a minor amount of padded fluff to make it appear legit) to the community here but instead, merely because he wants to reap their click thrus and ad dollars. That sucks, and if left unchecked, has the potential to, I fear, hurt this unique community.

Roland

[Anonymous Coward]

The most convincing argument that Roland Piquepaille is paying the Slashdot editors is that, at the time of writing, reading this story at +5 threshold, there are only three comments at +5, and all of them are complaining about him. The most recent Roland advertisments have all been the same. And yet the Slashdot editors continue to post his adverts.

What high editorial standards?

[Quattro Vezina]

When has /. ever claimed to have high editorial standards? It's a site where potentially interesting stuff get's posted, not some professional journalism outlet.

If anything's hurting Slashdot, it's the posters, especially all the annoying morons who seem to have crawled out of the woodwork for this article.

Get a life.