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.