

Stretching the “peer reviewed” brand until it snaps - padraic7a
http://blog.dshr.org/2015/01/stretching-peer-reviewed-brand-until-it.html?m=1

======
padraic7a
It's interesting that the elite journals are more likely to issue retractions.
Though I suppose the increased prestige and job opportunities logically lead
to more motive to game the system, create sockpuppets, commit other fraud etc.

Does the high rate of retractions show that the system works to some extent
though? I wonder what percentage of fraudulent research or faked peer review
is actually exposed? I guess we'll never know - one more argument for open
access and access to open research data though!

~~~
onion2k
If the cost (in terms of reputation) of printing a paper and subsequently
retracting it is lower than the cost of rejecting the paper in the first
place, a journal is actually better off printing a dodgy paper and then
backtracking later. Ultimately these journals are money-making functions of a
business enterprise so they'll usually do what they can to maximise profit
rather than quality, apparently even if that hinders the science.

~~~
padraic7a
although I think it's fair to say that not all retractions are the result of
fraud. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of this case for example
[http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/26/nature-cell-biology-
in...](http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/26/nature-cell-biology-insulin-
paper-retracted-antibody-problems/) but I think it looks like a
straightforward revision due to more up to date information. This seems to be
a good example of how science should work i.e. scientists posit theory,
scientists receive new information and update or revise theory in light of
this.

------
aet
I think the problem is with the publishing culture in some disciplines. For an
example of a field in which peer review does not appear to be problematic
consider finance/econ. In finance and econ you march you paper around to a
number of different conferences. At AFA you even get a discussant that
presents a critique after you present your work. After evolving the paper
based on feedback from the conference circuit you eventually submit to a
journal. At this point your work has been (hopefully) widely circulated in the
community and is unlikely to be some piece of crap.

Contrast this with engineering. When you submit to a conference it has to be
"new" work and you lose the copyright. It is a one shot deal. So, the benefit
of feedback you might get on your work is basically irrelevant because that
work in no longer publishable.

~~~
padraic7a
I don't think that's always true however. Check out this example of an
economist featured on Retraction Watch:
[http://retractionwatch.com/2015/01/05/anyone-want-hire-
econo...](http://retractionwatch.com/2015/01/05/anyone-want-hire-economist-
retracted-16-papers-fake-peer-reviews/)

That said I do think the idea of a paper being produced after it has been
toured around is a good idea - I wonder if it is appropriate for all fields
though?

~~~
hga
It can work for e.g. theoretical physics. But for anything involving serious
extermination you've got to take the word of the researchers that they
honestly did and reported it. At the most extreme example, experiments done
with the CERN Large Hadron Collider are not easily replicated elsewhere at
this moment ^_^.

It could also work for the explanation parts of experiment based papers, but,
eh, you're allowed to be wrong there. Just publish enough of the data allowing
others to double check your interpretation.

It is left as an exercise to the reader what other fields are known for
withholding data, and the likely reasons why.

