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."
The point was that Dow had released a paper claiming that, while an abnormal number of their workers were getting cancer, that this wasn't because of some chemical that they were exposed to in the workplace.
The scientist "critiqued a 2003 Dow-funded paper (published) in Texas Medicine"
In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.
Personally, I wish that he had gotten the article peer reviewed and published in another paper before doing this.
I wonder if he can now claim that he was "published in JOEM." Can people cite this work? Probably not, I'm thinking.
The effects of industry on scientific communication is pretty interesting. The overproscription of Statins in the US because the FDA was effectivly bribed is just one example.
Considering the various technology transfer acts passed by congress, more and more previously government funded is becoming the province of industry. The effects on the integrity of scientific research are only slowly becoming apparent.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
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.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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
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
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
IAAS and I serve as a peer-reviewer for a number of journals. Among the criteria we are asked to judge are the significance and originality of the work. If the work isn't "interesting", i.e. if it is not very significant/important or it's not very original (confirmatory results, for example), then it gets scored lower. The journal's space is limited, and the editors would rather devote it to new, important information rather than results which don't advance the field.
If the bulk of the readership is going to skip the article because it presents no new information or because it deals with a topic that no one cares about, then the editors are right to reject it.
In every journal, the "Instructions to Authors" section spells out what kind of manuscript will be considered for publication... the topics appropirate for this journal, the kinds of research, etc. If your paper isn't right for this journal, publish it somewhere else.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain