From: Fatima Mons
fatima.mons^^^yahoo.com <owner-chemistry..ccl.net>
To: "Austin, Amy J "
<amy_jean_austin..yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 10:42 AM
Subject: CCL: On "defending" and
"opposing" science
Sent to CCL by: "Fatima Mons" [fatima.mons]~[
yahoo.com]
There still is *an*
amount of bias with referees, especially those that have a vested
interest. I know
of one case involving the aquatic toxicity of ionic
liquids that was rejected for publication (the paper
showed that the ionic
liquids tested were more toxic in the aquatic environment than most
commonly
used molecular solvents). It turned out that one of the referees had a
vested interest in
ionic liquids (I believe that they didn't have a
background in environmental toxicity either). Editors
have to do more
to ensure that referees do not have bias due to vested interests. Gerard's
point
about hiding author and organization affiliations from referees during
the first review is a good
point. The names of the authors and
referees should be published for complete transparency after
the review process. Furthermore, if a paper is rejected and the
author feels that this is not justified,
the board of editors should review
the rejection to see if this is genuinely justified and when
appropriate
seek additional referees. In some cases, such as the aforementioned ionic
liquid paper,
calling upon referees with an environmental background would
be key here.
It can be all to easy for an author to make 'grand claims'
about benefits of a technology when they
have next to no knowledge of that
field. The scientific community have to do more to genuinely
challenge
these claims and journal editors have a moral and scientific duty to ensure that
the
science is of an appropriate standard and that there is no adverse bias
or vested interested involved
in the publishing process.
May be there
is a novel way to deal with this type of situation. Publish the paper
along with the
referees' comments. In that way, the whole scientific community can
see the debate in a transparent
manner, which prompts discussion and further
scientific research. Clearly the editors will have to
manage this
process appropriately and on a case-by-case basis.
Fatima.
Btw.,
the paper was published in another journal and subsequently a number of other
studies have
been published by other groups which have come to similar
conclusions. So the science was indeed
valid!
-= This
is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =-
To recover
the email address of the author of the message, please change
the strange
characters on the top line to the .. sign. You can also
E-mail to
subscribers: CHEMISTRY..ccl.net or
use:
E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST..ccl.net or use
http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml
Conferences:
http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/
Search
Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml
If
your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error, check:
http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt