Slashdot Mirror
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."
if this cancer 'only' effects 1 to 2 million people, why would it be of major intrest in a publication like this?
Hmmmmm
To some folk in the world, 5 hurricanes in a row in one small part of the world is considered "interesting".....
Skipping past peer review sort of invalidates the point of being some of the journals, doesn't it?
Hey, if you have something to say, we all want to be heard, but paid distribution of your comment may always be seen as self-promoting.
In either case, did anyone figure out if he was right?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
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
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
I think _I_ have to get my hands on this Roland Pigfucker and quite simply murder him. I want to get rid of his shitty stories already! God damn editors! Wake up! No-one wants Rolands retarded content-free-overrhyped-shit-articles.
FUCK YOU ROLAND! FUCK. YOU. I have posted here for 6 years, submitted and had accepted many stories and have excellent karma so I don't care if this one, out of character post loses me a few karma points. Every damn time I click a link in a story without first looking at the submitter and find myself at your uninformative useless advert vehicle of a "website" (and this is an often occurrence) I feel like I've been trolled. The fact that you have the shameless audacity to ask the readers of your submissions to "Read this summary before telling me what you think and if you've heard about a similar story." is vile and scummy. I have heard and previously agreed with all the "who cares it's just a dumb /. submission by some loser" appeals to better temperament but this has got to be like the 20th time this has happened and it really get's my goat. You are trolling your own readers for advertiser cash and that is disgusting. I don't know if you give kickbacks to Taco or what (or maybe they just don't give a shit), but the fact that /. keeps posting your non-stories reflects extremely poorly on the status of any journalistic integrity /. claims to have.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Here, read this: http://www.thedarkcitadel.com/index.php?itemid=276
Screw that: Another Roland Piquepaille article.
/., but the editors SUCK.
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
They dont fucking look at the links anymore. They've gone lazy. Its like "Hey look! Science -approve-." Seriously. This guy has a shameless advertisement in a link. This should NOT be allowed. I voted that we have the llama that was responsible for approving this add sacked. And we should NOT sack those responsible for sacking the llama. Ok, im done with the Monty Python jokes. Seriously, this needs to stop.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
I was driving through a heavy downpour on my way home from work tonight, and it stopped raining about 2 miles east of my home, and on the last stretch, I noticed some very cool clouds. I looked up, and they were right above me! Dozens of droopy boob clouds! :) Very cool!
I had bookmarked this site a few weeks ago and glad I did, now. The boobie clouds I saw were a little more defined than the ones in the pictures here, but not as pretty with sunset. I guess they are called Mammatus clouds.
http://www.extremeinstability.com/05-4-19.htm
As an aside, the last time I remember seeing these clouds was when I heard about tornadoes likely about 100 miles to the NorthEast, and the fact that the entire east side of the sky was a heck of a cloud system. So I hit the road, drove past the tornado about 5 miles away (found the hail though!) and about 20 miles later I got to where they had predicted the tornado..but instead I got to see these awesome boobie clouds. Much better than the ones I saw tonight or in the pictures on that page. Perfect, droopy, half-spheres everywhere. Was cool :)
It is ment to read
Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad for Roland Piquepailles Blog
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The article is about somebody protesting the editortial decision not to have the paper reviewed. It's an interesting, although probably expensive, way of protesting editorial policy.
I don't understand the backlash in this case. If someone else is covering the story, link to it and remove the need to click to his site. Then I'd say the complaining would be fair. In this case, no one seems to have done that. That's a major difference between Groklaw and /. Here, users bitch and complain. There, you get links to the absolute source wherever possible. Got a link to the source? Please give it. I'd love to see it. Hopefully it will have more detail. If not then, maybe it's possible that Roland has created a story this time.
/etc/hosts
/. is peer reviewed - by the editors. Complaints about Slashdot echo complains about the peer review process in the story. I'm not a Roland fan boy, but until someone produces credible links to refute that this is his, I say it's worth linking to. I know I would have not have heard of this incident without this story, and as someone who has published (limited) works, I find it relevant and interesting.
Slashdot rarely produces any new content either, and is now an ad/subscription based site. Why are we still here if they are just putting together other people's stuff and "selling it".
You can still just:
echo "127.0.0.1 www.primidi.com >>
(or the windows hosts file if you're using a Windows based OS)
Without this story being pointed as coming from somewhere else, I linked to his site to read it. The entire controversy with Roland seems to echo what the story is about anyway - Who controls what is seen in a "peer reviewed" publication.
In short, give me a reason to dispute that *this* story it not appropriate for the Science section of Slashdot, and not based on the name of the submitter, or the editor who posted it.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
It's not that it's a bad story, I liked the story, unfortunately, Roland's self-serving self-linking is what puts me, and so many other slashdotter's off.
He blatantly rips off content to get cheap hits on his site for ad revenue.
Read this to see why.
Photos.
I think that any paper that meets a journals criteria should be put online and any interested party can vote as to the merits of the piece. The best and most interesting papers will become featured and the worse will be put to the back of the que. Papers that are so far advanced that their merits aren't recognized for years will have the option of becoming featured when they meet a threshold of other papers citing them. Papers that become seminal can be bound once each year for more perminant archiving. Nothing is lost in this system and no paper is rejected because one or two reviewers are jealous or don't quite understand the authors intent.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
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.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom