|
Hi Gerard,
I agree regarding the inadequate balance of being authors
disclosed vs. reviewers being anonymous. But I would go the other
direction: Disclose the reviewers.
Two arguments:
- an expert in the field will anyway recognize the authors after
reading the abstract and 10 lines.
- and after a while you also identify 50% of the reviewers based
on their style and arguments.
Hence let us operate with open face. If we have good arguments we
should be sufficiently able to justify a rejection of a paper even
if we know and like a certain colleague. Indeed, I several times
put my name into a review, because based on my specific knowledge
and arguments the authors anyway would have easily know who I am.
But if you suggest to disclose the reviewers in the final
publication header, you need to add also the recommendation given
by the reviewer, i.e. whther he/she suggested to accept/reject the
paper. His would be a good thing in the way that a reviewer wold
have to be more cautious in rejection: If he suggests to reject a
good paper, which is finally accepted, it would be finally known
to the community that he had recommended rejection. Now if he has
good arguments, he needs not be afraid of this. But if he does
not, he would be ashamed.
Does someone know how such suggestions about improvements of the
peer review system can be brought into panels who finally decide
on that?
Andreas
Am 18.08.2012 21:50, schrieb Gerard JP van Westen
gerard.vanwesten]![gmail.com:
Dear All,
I should say I agree with Andreas Klamt, to me it sometimes
seems peer review sets the boundary low. However I have also had
experiences where a referee could not always substantiate
negative comments which seemed subjective rather than objective.
I can therefore understand that one can get frustrated. But
would still argue that the scientific method as it is, is the
best available (at least I cannot think of a better way).
That said however, to me it seems strange that referees are
anonymous but authors are not. Perhaps I am over simplifying the
situation, but a paper should be about the science. The science
should be sound and as you said, the authors should be able to
respond to questions and defend their paper. BUT it should not
matter who they are. When authors are disclosed on a manuscript
it always indirectly includes their full career in the form of
previously published papers, conferences, personal encounters
etc. This will always influence an objective judgement (wether
negative or positive it is difficult to remain completely
objective). I would therefore argue that authors should also be
anonymous on a manuscript (it should only be known to the editor
who is who).
In addition, I would argue to add the referees that reviewed
a paper to all published papers (perhaps added to the header as
the editor is added to the header in PLoS ONE). This will
allow
authors to continue the discussion with a referee after a paper
has been accepted. I concur that discussion if a good thing, and
in particular post publication discussion as this orm of
discussion allows the whole field to be involved rather than a
select number of people. In addition it could perhaps lead to a
reduction of papers that are accepted too easy as the referees
responsible for this acceptance are also named on the paper.
Likewise, referees that positively review a paper are also in
some small way connected to it.
In any case, just my $ 0.02.
Regards,
Gerard
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM,
Andreas Klamt klamt]*[ cosmologic.de <owner-chemistry],[ccl.net>
wrote:
Sergio,
as most other contributors, I think that you are seeing
things too pessimistic here. Critical discussion and
opposition really are important for the advancement of
science. Indeed, I believe that we need more of that and
that we have to find more open ways to oppone and
discuss scientific results. We need more discussion in
conferences after the talks, and we need a better way of
discussion of scientific papers. Sometimes I have am
considered as inpolite when I ask a really critical
question after a scientific presentation. But how can
that be? I think everybody who presents or publishes in
sciences should have good arguments for all of his
statements and results. If that is the case then he will
be well prepared to reply to that question. If not then
the question has disclosed some weekness in his research
and it should help to improve. Discussion at the end of
talks also are too much bilateral between speaker and
opponent. Usually no real discussion between many of the
experts in the room evolves. But that would be
interesting and sometimes needed. Today mostly the
discussion is just a question by an opponent and an
answer by the speaker, and it ends a bit vague. If the
question was unfair or the speaker not well able to find
the right answer, he goes home with a bad feeling, and
if on the other hand the reply was wrong or unfair, the
opponent goes home with a bad feeling. It would be good
if we would have the culture of discussion that in such
a situation other people stand up in order to either
support the speaker or the opponent, or have a third
oppinion.
I think we need this culture even more in scientific
literature. We need more "Comments on paper xyz", and we
need comments on comments, but usually the latter are
not allowed by the editors any more. Hence it is like in
the conference room: The author has the last word, and
if the reply on a comment is again misleading, the
opponent has no way of replying any more. And we need
the discussion on papers on a shorter time scale and at
one place. Today each round takes 2 months at minimum.
Nowadays it should be doable to do such discussion of a
paper electronically, and it should be available online
at the end of each article. Hence, when downlaoding an
article you could have a quick look whether there has
been a discussion and what the average opinion had been.
The reason why I think that we need such discussion
culture and forum is that I am less optimistic about
peer review meanwhile. No question, we need the peer
review system to filter out some rubbish and to have a
barrier which hinders unserious people to submit all
rubbish as scientific papers. But I am afraid that much
too many bad papers go through the system and after
passing can claim to be peer reviewed. Some influencing
people in the community who know the editors since long
get everything published, even if one reviewer has
detected substantial mistakes. In one case I proved
mathmatically that some equation which was considered by
the author as something new, was mathmatically identical
with an earlier published equation of someone else. I
suggest not to publish the paper with that wrong claim.
The paper appeared essentially unchanged in an ACS
journal. Asking the editor how this could happen, he
answered that he had gotten two positive and one
negative reports. Thus we had accepted it. Asking him,
whether he had sent my substantial concerns to the other
reviewers in order to reconsider their opinion, he
answered that that would not be within the rules of the
journal. And just yesterday I saw that a paper by an
influencing author appeared online essentially
unchanged, although I again had a raised a number of
severe concerns. Therefore I believe: We need more
critical post-peer-review debates.
Andreas
Am 18.08.2012 02:43, schrieb Sergio Manzetti
sergio.manzetti-$- gmx.com:
I think JJ and Amy are
getting closer to the point I am stating. There
are many cases where people with great ideas
never make it to the surface, either because
they are not "strong" enough to "battle" against
opposition or criticism, or they simply don't
want to. I know of one who had a great method to
treat people, but because it was never
scientifically validated, he received cold
showers each time he opened up his method to
scientist. In the meantime, his method treated a
lot of people, and they recovered. Scientists
ARE trained to validate, annihilate, exclude,
disregard and eventually accept. This trait of
the scientist is to me a little stupidious, it
seems like House in the series at the hospital.
He goes through a bunch of hypotheses and tests
them all on the patient, meanwhile the patient
suffers and at the end after hitting the right
hypothesis he calls himself a great doctor (or
at least appears to be one). Same thing are
scientists, they are recognized as great after
they have learned on how to tramp down
opposition as the first step in their life as
scientists, then they have to defend their
research to grant-organization, and fill up the
applications with "why this is so important for
the future and society". Still in a near
pseudo-darwinistic behavior, the scientist
fights through the hierarchy of late nights and
hard work, and at the age of 70 reaches the
Emeritious stage. To many this is "life at its
best", and many are also good examples of nice
events, but at the end of the day, the way
scientist DO science is build on that everything
has to be bullet and water proof before he even
discusses the theory with others, otherwise the
classical debates begin. I have also heard from
previous Senior Scientists passing the age of 50
of witnessing and ENJOYING debates where
scientist where verbally annihilating each
other, and I recall particularly what this
professor said in the context with the debate he
saw "it was blood on the dance floor". At the
end of the day it is a litigious procedure that
scientists have to "survive" through, and it
creates FRICTION. This friction is my whole
point of the discussion: It is energy and can be
used to do great science (pr other positive
things), and not wasted on discussions and
debates. Those are just for entertaining the
competitive nature in people. Competition,
debate and discussion requires energy, again,
that energy can be used for other things and is
valuable.
Therefore, the quite and contemplating scientist
who doesn't bother about debating or showing his
results before reaching a full final format, and
perhaps not even showing them then but wait till
people are not so interested in debating him, is
a calm and relaxing scientist, that cares about
the object of science, not the subject behind it
or those around it.
Sergio
----- Original
Message -----
From: j j
robinson jameschums^^^yahoo.com
Sent: 08/17/12
09:48 PM
To: Manzetti,
Sergio
Subject: CCL: On
"defending" and "opposing"
science
Dear CCLers,
might I suggest the original
correspondent watches the film
"Insignificance". We all have
knowledge... but I prefer insight,
understanding..I suspect I am simply
too stupid to find the truth..
Experiment, observation, hypothesis.
The debates are not battles of
gladiators, nor personal
feuds..science and/or natural
philosophy - is patient observation,
measurement, correlation, verification
of experimental facts, comparison,
perspective, understanding..we debate
with others to make sure we are not
simply deluding ourselves or that
other are not deluded. We can agree to
differ, review papers, admit
mistakes..we are human too. Results
and conclusion do not simply result
from pressing the return key and
waiting to see how many "hartree's"
come out at the end.
J J Robinson - personal email -
opinions are personal only.
--
Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
CEO / Geschäftsführer
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Burscheider Strasse 515
D-51381 Leverkusen, Germany
phone +49-2171-731681
fax +49-2171-731689
e-mail klamt##cosmologic.de
web www.cosmologic.de
[University address: Inst. of Physical and
Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg]
Join us at the 4th-COSMO-RS-Symposium April 2013
Details at www.cosmologic.de/symposium2013
HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
--
Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
CEO / Geschäftsführer
COSMOlogic GmbH & Co. KG
Burscheider Strasse 515
D-51381 Leverkusen, Germany
phone +49-2171-731681
fax +49-2171-731689
e-mail klamt*o*cosmologic.de
web www.cosmologic.de
[University address: Inst. of Physical and
Theoretical Chemistry, University of Regensburg]
Join us at the 4th-COSMO-RS-Symposium April 2013
Details at www.cosmologic.de/symposium2013
HRA 20653 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
Komplementaer: COSMOlogic Verwaltungs GmbH
HRB 49501 Amtsgericht Koeln, GF: Prof. Dr. Andreas Klamt
|