How Would You Know if Article Is Controversey or Not
The article which tells how this idea came well-nigh, the mode in which the different papers were created and the selection of journals to which the papers were submitted, every bit well as the results of the "experiment", was published in the prestigious journal Science¹ on fourthursday October, 2013.
Bohannon refers to his article in Science equally a "sting in the tail" for Open Access. Nevertheless, just equally his fraudulent paper contains methodological flaws and an unbalanced arroyo under which the experiments were carried out with the substances that were tested and the corresponding controls, his article in Science besides contains them. The author does not apply the usual practice of using a control group, which in this case would have been formed by non-Open Access journals. Therefore, the question which remains and which is even so unanswered is: How would non-Open Admission journals comport when faced with a fraudulent paper of this type ? Another question is that Bohannan only selected Open Access journals which charge commodity processing fees and many of them already take a reputation every bit "predators". Even so, the number of Open Admission journals which do not charge fees is very large.
Michael Eisen, a biologist from the University of Berkeley and a researcher at The Howard Hughes Medical Plant still draws attention, on his own blog, to an article authored by Wolfe-Simon et. al. published in Science in 2011 in which he describes the beingness of bacteria that employ arsenic instead of phosphorous in the brand-up of its DNA (one of the five elements which make up the macromolecule). The article, which describes experiments which are at the very to the lowest degree questionable, in lodge to put forward a theory that would impact on our "understanding of the scientific discipline behind the origin of life on Earth" and on matters connected with development, was accustomed for publication after passing through the periodical'south allegedly critical peer-review process. Eisen, therefore, highlights that the precarious nature of the peer-review process is not limited to the Open up Admission journal universe but as well touches on historic loftier bear on journals. His explanation for the fact that this newspaper was accustomed for publication lies in the fact that it puts frontward a theory that is fairly innovative and bonny.
Immediately after the date of publication of the commodity in Scientific discipline, dozens of scientific and amateur blogs, journals and magazines, and social networks around the earth reported and / or commented on the results of this study. Some concur that in that location is an unambiguous relationship between Open Admission and the absence of peer review, or a low quality of publications. There are, nevertheless, diverse aspects which claiming the generalized nature of the conclusions drawn by the writer, which were pointed out in the large number of comments which the article received – and has connected to receive since its publication. In this mail service, nosotros will go into some of these in greater detail.
The Idea
The writer describes how the idea emerged to submit a fraudulent newspaper with innumerable and very obvious flaws to a large number of Open up Access journals. A researcher in Nigeria tried to publish an article on culex quinquefasciatus, a mosquito that carries West Nile virus and other pathogens in the Open Admission journal Public Wellness Research, believing that information technology was a journal which did not charge author fees since there was no mention of this on the journal site. Yet, after her paper was accustomed for publication, she was asked to pay a $150 publication fee which was already discounted past 50% considering she was an author based in Nigeria. Given the inherently twisted difficulties in an African country in making a payment in strange currency, and cheers to the intervention of a colleague in the USA who made the payment (which had been further reduced to $90), her paper was published.
Information technology was this fact that made Bohannon wait into SAP, the publisher of Public Health Research, where he discovered a whole series of irregularities such as plagiarism, and a fictitious address and editorial body which led him to decide to submit a paper of his ain to a SAP journal, and in order to become the lay of this publishing landscape, he took the decision to "replicate the experiment beyond the unabridged Open up Admission world".
Methodology
The Who ' s Who of Open Admission journals used past Bohannon was the Directory of Open up Admission Journals (DOAJ). He also used the List of Publishers² which enumerates publishers which adopt unprofessional practices, besides called "predatory", co-ordinate to Jeffery Beall, an data scientist at the University of Colorado, U.s.a., the curator of the list. By cantankerous-checking both journal lists in the bailiwick areas of chemistry, biology and medicine, and eliminating those not published in English language, the terminal list of targets came to 304 journals.
In lodge to create hundreds of different versions of the same "scientific" newspaper, the writer began with the post-obit premise : Molecule Ten from lichen species Y inhibits the growth of cancer cell Z. To create the papers and substitute for those variables, a database of molecules, lichens and cancer cell lines was created along with a computer program which allowed hundreds of "original " papers to be created from a combination of these variables. The names of the fictitious authors were affiliated with equally fictitious African institutions using a program that immune the permutation of African first and last names or the bringing together of prefixes and suffixes to generate the names of institutions.
The methodology section of the papers which had been generated in this way independent gross errors. The same held true for the analysis of the results from which it would be impossible to attain the determination that molecule Ten is a de facto inhibitor of cancer cell growth. More seriously, however, is the final conclusion of the paper which states that "molecule X is a promising new drug confronting the treatment of cancer". This conclusion was based upon a pocket-sized number of experiments which were at the very to the lowest degree inconclusive, and every bit an apparent advocacy of bypassing clinical trials. The final sting in the fraud was making the native English of the author more than flawed and this was accomplished past translating the work into French using Google Translate and and then translating the result dorsum into English language.
The Results
Betwixt January and August of 2013, the writer submitted works at the charge per unit of about ten per week : ane paper to each periodical of each publisher. At first, the author chose journals which did not levy an article processing charge; in the 2nd phase he chose those which just charged a fee if the paper was accepted; lastly, he chose those journals which required a fee to be paid upward front for the submission of the newspaper. If a paper was rejected, so that was the cease of the process for that journal. If a periodical sent review comments and asked for changes, the author would send some photos of lichens, extra details on methodology, or better formatting without, however, irresolute any of the fatal scientific flaws in the paper. If the paper was accepted, the journal in question would receive a class e-mail service in which they would be informed that the authors had unfortunately detected a flaw in the experiments which invalidated the results, and they were therefore asking for the submitted paper to be withdrawn.
The writer concluded that many journals simply be to rake in money from authors in the form of an "Open up Admission article processing accuse" or to allegedly defray the costs associated with editing and reviewing an commodity. Many journals which are entitled "American Journal X" are in reality operating their publishing houses in Red china, India or Pakistan, and their editors are writing due east-mails to authors in somewhat shaky English language.
The Assay
Since the date of publication of the article in Scientific discipline, 157 journals had accepted the paper and 98 had rejected information technology. Of the remaining 49 journals, 29 seemed to have been abased by their publishers and were not responding to e-mails. They besides didn't have valid addresses in the places in which they stated they were operating. Editors from xx other journals had informed the fictitious authors that their papers were all the same nether review, and they were also excluded from this analysis. Credence took twoscore days on average compared to 24 days to elicit a rejection.
Of the 255 papers (157 accepted + 98 rejected) that underwent the complete editorial procedure, approximately sixty% apparently had not passed through any type of peer review process. This number is skillful news as far as rejections are concerned, but for acceptances it means that someone judged them to be suitable for publication without really reading them.
The type of review requested by the 106 journals which made such a request focused basically on the formatting, layout and the diction of the language used. Of these, 70% ultimately accustomed the papers. Merely 36 of the 304 submissions generated review comments which took business relationship of serious methodological flaws in the papers. Even so, 16 of these papers were accepted despite the superficial revisions which were carried out by the authors at the request of the reviewers.
The Beall listing shows that it is fairly accurate in spotting publishers with poor quality control, or "predators". For the publishers that completed the review process, 82% accepted the papers. The surprising outcome is for publishers in the DOAJ: of those publishers who completed the review process, 45% accustomed the bogus article.
Renowned publishers such as Elsevier, which publishes the Open Access journal Drug Intervention Today, also fell into the trap, since information technology accepted Bohannon's article for publication. Its Vice-Presidents, however, stated that this periodical is not actually owned past Elsevier and that they but published it for someone else, having no actual role in the editorial procedure. Other well-known publishers such as Wolters Kluwer, which publishes the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals which accepted the bogus paper for publication, made a public retraction and closed the journal downward.
In the meantime, the writer (Bohannon) has conferred with renowned scientists who care deeply nigh Open Access. They agree that the Open up Access model per se should not be held responsible for the poor quality of the works targeted by Science. "If I had targeted traditional, subscription-based journals, I strongly doubtable you would get the same issue" says David Roos of the University of Pennsylvania. Everyone agrees, nevertheless, that scientific journals should honor their obligations to exercise strict quality command over what they publish.
Comments on the article made in the scientific and mainstream media
Peter Suber'southward Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109377556796183035206/posts/CRHeCAtQqGq
According to Peter Suber, one of the nigh committed and respected proponents of Open Admission since its inception in the early 2000'due south, Bohannon showed flaws in some OA journals, but these practice not represent a significant sample of the OA category, nor are they worse than journals that are not OA. Nor is the problem of low-quality peer review restricted to OA journals, or that they are more dishonest.
In Suber's opinion, the Science commodity is constructive in exposing bad OA journals and in alerting authors non to submit their papers to them. On the other hand, it has a detrimental effect on the general perception of OA, leading many to believe that all of these journals are of poor quality or dishonest. In fact the article seems to advise that the majority of them charge an article processing fee which is not truthful because co-ordinate to DOAJ the majority of them do not accuse any fees at all. Bohannon, states Suber, is not responsible for the erroneous cess that all OA journals are of inferior quality, but the manner in which he draws conclusions in his commodity corroborates this false assessment.
Open Admission Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
http://oaspa.org/response-to-the-recent-article-in-scientific discipline/
In its blog, OASPA published a public declaration regarding the Bohannon article where it points out the more serious flaws of the article and lists facts that seek to restore the credibility of OA, whose reputation was dented by the unethical practices of some publishers but non of most.
Similar other bloggers and journalists, the OASPA points out the biggest limitation of the experiment, which is the lack of a command group and the non-randomized selection of journals to which the bogus paper was sent. The Association reaffirms its commitment to the ethical conduct of publishers affiliated to it and states that non-compliance by them could lead to their expulsion. Even so, the Association makes clear the most important bulletin from Bohannon's article, which is to place, together with the bookish customs, new and efficient ways of picking out trustworthy journals and publishers, independent of their business model.
Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/science-reporter-spoofs-hundreds-of-journals-with-a-false-paper/
The authors of this blog (Adam Markus and Ivan Oransky) criticize Bohannon'south "experiment" for the lack of a control group which in this instance would have been represented past subscription journals that are traditionally known for the careful peer review procedure that they undertake. To this criticism Bohannon counters by saying that such journals tin take many months or even years to review a newspaper and, that in low-cal of this, it would be difficult to obtain a significant sample in a time menses comparable to that of OA journals. The authors even mention the not-OA Elsevier journal Practical Mathematics Letters which published a series of manufactures that did non make any sense mathematically speaking. The eastward-mail of the author of that series (ohm@budweiser.com) was also provocative in nature but this fact went unnoticed.
Inside Higher Education
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/ten/04/open-access-journals-confuse-contributors-they-experiment-peer-review-models
Carl Straumsheim analyzes the experiment published in Science with a critical eye and puts himself in the writer'southward shoes. He cites examples of peer review processes nether study in the field of the Humanities and concludes that there is not only ane single peer review model. Many fledgling journals find themselves pressured to undertake a careful evaluation and still answer to the authors in a timely fashion. Peer reviewers that undertake good reviews are difficult to recruit, given that their painstaking work takes time, is unpaid and does not receive the advisable recognition. The editors of the OA journal Periodical of Digital Humanities defend the proposal for a procedure of open peer review where "publication, criticism and word could all take identify in the same space". Yet, other publishers believe that more experience is needed to testify its validity. Ultimately, OA journal publishers are looking for an evaluation procedure that ensures both the diversity and quality of the articles.
Doubtful News
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/10/the-slums-of-scientific-peer-review/
Sharon Hill stresses the fact that many OA journals have it as their objective to levy article processing charges only on those authors that have their works accepted. The study in Science likewise demonstrated that the well-nigh prestigious OA journal, PLoS ONE, passed the exam, rejecting Bohannon's paper. PLoS ONE can be considered a type of Open Access Science given its prestige and credibility. Colina admits, still, that the OA peer review process has taken a hard hitting and needs to have its credibility restored but does not present options on how to practice this.
Science Blogs – Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/04/stones-glass-houses-etc/
P.Z. Myers analyzes the work of Bohannon from the point of view that many journals that take works generated past a estimator are simply simply a group of people, a reckoner and an Internet site with an attractive name, determined to collect publication fees. It is about a perfectly legal fraud, and the more articles accepted, the meliorate.
It is unjust, nonetheless, to arraign OA for the trouble since 40% of the journals rejected the Bohannon article, only equally PLoS I did. Myers also draws attending to the fact that there was no control group in Bohannon's "experiment" which would accept been the subscription journals. The author of the blog agrees that there are innumerable problems with regard to scholarly communication, however these practice not relate to OA. In his opinion " it's an overproliferation of scientific discipline journals, a too-frequent lack of rigor in review, and a scientific discipline community that generates least-publishable-units by the auto-similar application of routine protocols in tedious experiments."
The Guardian Higher Education Network
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/weblog/2013/october/04/science-hoax-peer-review-open-access
According to Brusque Rice, the article in Science "…. doesn't point to the existent crisis – the meltdown of the peer review organisation".
In general, the peer review process is taken very seriously by researchers. Still, they are nether pressure to publish because their career paths depend on it and works of poor quality slip through and are still published.
Rice cites the case of the researcher Dr. Staple at the Academy of Tilburg in Kingdom of the netherlands who published 55 articles based on fraudulent data in renowned journals, including Science.
According to Rice, Bohannon points to the crisis in science, which is not restricted to the universe of OA journals. What is in crisis is the system of peer review and – it is necessary to emphasize this – it is OA journals that are leading the evolution of new approaches to this important stage in the editorial process.
Rice also highlights that 65% of the journals in the DOAJ do not accuse whatever article processing fees whatsoever, since they are maintained by universities or bookish societies. He therefore recognizes that charging fees may favor corruption.
Similar other authors, he also defends the open peer review project as an alternative, utilizing the potential of the Internet as the platform for scholarly communication today.
Scholarly Open Access
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/x/03/science/#more-2386
The blog is authored by Jeffrey Beall, the author of Listing of Publishers , a listing of publishers that have unethical practices which was used by Bohannon in his article in Science.
Beall wrote his weblog post on the mean solar day before the appointment the article in Science was published, relating details of the work. He notes that despite Bohannon having withdrawn his work when it had been accepted by a periodical claiming to take detected errors in the experiments, four of them published the article. The publishers of the iv journals are in Beall's List of Publishers, which gives this list credibility. Beall states "I've known for a long time that predatory publishers are corrupting open up access, that they are accepting papers unworthy of bearing the imprimatur of science, and that they are pain researchers, science, and scientific discipline communication. I am delighted that the inquiry reported in the Science article confirms this."
Real Clear Science
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/spoof-newspaper-accustomed-to-157-open-admission-journals.html
"Open access. "Publishing for the people!" It'southward a adept idea, right? Yep! And no… sort of."
Ross Pomeroy points out that the OA model in which the author pays to accept the article made available freely to all is responsible for the low level of selectivity of the journals that adopt this model.
While Nature rejects xc% of papers submitted, the Swiss Open Access publisher Frontiers rejects only 20%. There is no reason to suppose that a periodical published by Frontiers, considered one of the best OA publishers, would have fallen into the trap devised by Bohannon. In fact, the periodical Frontiers in Pharmacology of Anti-Cancer Drugs rejected the paper.
Pomeroy likewise highlights the fact that PLoS I had rejected the paper, reinforcing its reputation for conducting a careful process of peer review. The same occurred with the publisher Hindawi based in Egypt which publishes Chemotherapy Inquiry and Practice.
The blog'due south author considers OA a worthwhile and valuable idea. However, says Pomeroy "reviewers and editors of open up admission journals must agree themselves to the onerous standards demanded by rigorous, proper science and not fall for the juicy temptations of like shooting fish in a barrel money."
Language Log
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7584
Mark Lieberman, through the analysis of Bohannon's article in Science and the comments of Curt Rice³ in The Guardian , reminds u.s. that Science is the paradigm of a subscription journal that, like other subscription journals, is suffering from the moral and political assault of the Open up Admission motility through recent mandates in the Usa and in various countries in Europe which state that the results of publicly funded enquiry should exist made available in Open Admission. It also must be considered that the cost of the publishing process of OA journals is not aught, and ane of the ways to comprehend this cost is past charging commodity processing fees to authors. This model, for sure, is conducive to fraud and extortion which must be curbed, but this does non invalidate, per se, the OA publishing model.
Subscription journals and their publishers, it should be noted, are besides motivated by high profits equally evidenced by Elsevier and other publishers who earn big profits on the unpaid work of the academic editors, academics, authors and reviewers.
Lieberman agrees with Rice that the problem resides in the antiquated system of peer review in place today and ends by last that: (1) today's organisation of peer review does not prevent the publication of works of bad quality, even in renowned journals; (2) its lengthy delays slows downwards innovation and evolution in science; (3) the proposed evaluation after publication may become the standard for publicly exposing the comments of a reviewer in a Spider web-based platform; (4) the model of open peer review can prevent rivalries, retaliation and biases that occur covered upward by anonymity. However, Lieberman points out that scientists are conservative by nature, and a long time may be needed before changes are implemented.
External links
Web log Michel Eisen – http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/
DOAJ – http://www.doaj.org/
Notes
¹ Science
² Lista de publishers
³ Curt Rice
Referências
BOHANNON, J. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science, Vol. 342, nº 6154, pp. 60-65. Available from: doi: 10.1126/scientific discipline.342.6154.60.
WOLFE-SIMON, F. et al. A Bacterium That Tin Grow past Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus. Science. 2010, Vol. 332, pp. 1163–1166 Available from: <http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163>.
About Lilian Nassi-Calò
Lilian Nassi-Calò studied chemistry at Instituto de Química – USP, holds a doctorate in Biochemistry past the same institution and a mail service-doctorate every bit an Alexander von Humboldt young man in Wuerzburg, Frg. Later her studies, she was a professor and researcher at IQ-USP. She likewise worked as an industrial chemist and soon she is Coordinator of Scientific Communication at BIREME/PAHO/WHO and a collaborator of SciELO.
Translated from the original in Portuguese by Nicholas Cop Consulting.
NASSI-CALÒ, L. Controversial Commodity in The Journal "Science" exposes the weaknesses of Peer-Review in a set of Open Access Journals [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2013 [viewed ]. Available from: https://weblog.scielo.org/en/2013/11/05/controversial-article-in-the-journal-scientific discipline-exposes-the-weaknesses-of-peer-review-in-a-gear up-of-open-access-journals/
Source: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/11/05/controversial-article-in-the-journal-science-exposes-the-weaknesses-of-peer-review-in-a-set-of-open-access-journals/
0 Response to "How Would You Know if Article Is Controversey or Not"
Post a Comment