Having been an editor for four years, I am starting to think that most things get rejected due to:
1) poor writing 2) incomplete lines of though 3) poorly citing statements 4) excessive speculation 5) wrong stats And usually, you can clean up these issues. On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Mitch Cruzan<[email protected]> wrote: > I think Jonathan has identified the crux of the issue here- well-trained > scientist do not rely on the opinions of others to determine which papers > are valid and which are perhaps flawed. Critical thinking/reading is a > primary goal of all graduate programs and is something we introduce > undergraduates to in advanced courses. This takes extreme forms sometimes > as I have seen journal club sessions where there is almost a competition > among students for who can most effectively eviscerate the paper to display > its defects. By the time our graduate students complete their training they > are nearly intellectual piranhas ready to rip apart any paper or proposal > that comes their way, and many a young scientist has built their career by > deconstructing the work of their predecessors. This is both the strength > and the horror of the peer review process - we send off our precious > intellectual offspring (papers and proposals) with what we think is great > hope and promise only to be shredded by the reviewers. Anyone who has > participated in this process knows that it works very well most of the time, > but as I said at the beginning, its all about individual assessments, and it > is guaranteed that there will be disagreements over the value and validity > of any individual paper. > That said, I would only caution contributors to this list to take care with > the use of words. Something like 'faith' to a scientist (will my PCR > reaction work today or not) is very different than the use of this word in a > religious context. Some who read these posts may try to use these exchanges > to support personal views that the writer never intended - to > inappropriately support an a view that 'faith' is intrinsic to science, > hence raising the validity of science alternatives. Words like these are > loaded with a variety of meanings, so I would advocate sticking to a > scientific vernacular for writings that are posted to this list. > > Mitch > > Jonathan Greenberg wrote: >> >> Martin: >> >> I certainly hope most scientists don't rely on "faith" in the peer >> review process to determine if a paper is valid or not. I've always treated >> peer-review as just setting a low-end of reliability -- e.g. the paper isn't >> AWFUL if it made it into this journal, and is at least worthy of me reading >> it -- the better the journal, typically, the higher the bar, but no journal >> comes close to being infallible. If you've reviewed for mid to upper tier >> journals, you'll know that the vast majority of submissions are terrible -- >> we throw out a LOT of bad research. Since science requires repeatability of >> results, if a paper is absolutely novel and brand new, I will ALWAYS spend a >> LOT more time reading through it than if its basically confirming what a lot >> of other papers have confirmed -- peer review + repetition of results = >> higher reliability. >> Personally, I disagree with the statement "The problem is that no >> individual has enough time, knowledge, and >> background to know if the scientific method is being properly by all those >> who claim to be doing so." If you are citing a paper or using a paper to >> guide your own research, as a scientist you should be reading the paper >> carefully enough to decide whether or not it is scientifically grounded -- >> if you are just pulling out "facts" from the abstract and discussion, you >> aren't really doing your job. This type of behavior WILL catch up with you, >> eventually -- if you are basing your own research on an assumption of >> validity of someone else's work simply because that work made it into a >> journal, and that work proves to be in error, you are essentially shooting >> yourself in the foot down the road. >> --j >> >> Martin Meiss wrote: >>> >>> I find this exchange very interesting, and it points up a major >>> problem caused by the burgeoning of scientific knowledge and the >>> limitations >>> of the individual. As scientists, we believe (have faith) that the >>> scientific method is the best means of arriving at truth about the >>> natural >>> world. Even if the method is error-prone in some ways, and is subject to >>> various forms of manipulation, it is historically self-correcting. >>> The problem is that no individual has enough time, knowledge, and >>> background to know if the scientific method is being properly by all >>> those >>> who claim to be doing so. We hear someone cite a suspicious-sounding fact >>> (i.e., a fact that doesn't correspond to our perhaps-erroneous >>> understanding), and we want to know if it is based on real science or >>> pseudo-science. So what to we do? We ask if the supporting research >>> appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e., has this been vetted by the >>> old-boys network?). This sounds a little like the response of the people >>> who first heard the teachings of Jesus. They didn't ask "How do we know >>> this is true?" They asked "By whose authority do you speak?" >>> These two questions should never be confused, yet the questions >>> "Did >>> it appear in a peer-reviewed journal" and "Is that journal REALLY a >>> peer-reviewed journal?" skate perilously close to this confusion. We are >>> looking for a short-cut, for something we can trust so we don't have to >>> be >>> experts in every branch of science and read every journal ourselves. I >>> don't know the answer to this dilemma, and perhaps there is none, but we >>> should be looking for something better than "Does this have the stamp of >>> approval of people who think like I do?" We should be looking for >>> something >>> that is not just an encodement of "Does this violate the doctrine of my >>> faith?" The pragmatic necessity of letting others decide whether certain >>> research is valid should be no excuse for relaxing our personal vigilance >>> and skepticism. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap that ensnares the >>> religionists who are trying to undermine science because it threatens >>> their >>> faith. >>> >>> Martin M. Meiss >>> >>> >>> 2009/7/8 Kerry Griffis-Kyle <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I am teaching a Sophomore/Junior level evolution course at Texas Tech >>>> (where a significant proportion of my students believe evolution is >>>> anti-God). One of the activities I have them do is take three >>>> creationist >>>> claims about science and use the peer-reviewed scientific literature to >>>> find >>>> evidence to support or refute the claim. It makes them really think >>>> about >>>> the issues; and if they follow the directions, it does a better job than >>>> any >>>> of my classroom activities convincing them that the claims against >>>> evolution >>>> are just a bunch of hooey. Unfortunately, there are journals claiming >>>> peer-review status that are not. It can be very frustrating. >>>> >>>> Like Raphael, I also wonder if there is a good source the students can >>>> use >>>> as a rubric for telling if a journal article is peer-reviewed. >>>> >>>> ***************************** >>>> Kerry Griffis-Kyle >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Natural Resources Management >>>> Texas Tech University >>>> >>>> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 5:03 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> I've noticed a number of cases lately where groups with a strong >>>> political >>>> agenda (on topics like climate change, evolution, stem cells, or human >>>> health) cite "peer reviewed" studies in journals that are essentially >>>> fabricated for the purpose of advancing a specific viewpoint. >>>> >>>> What's a good way to tell when a journal is baloney? Of course, it's >>>> easy >>>> for a scientist in his or her own field to know when a journal is a >>>> sham, >>>> but how can we let others know it's obviously fake? For example, are >>>> only >>>> "real" journals included on major abstract indexing services? >>>> >>>> -- <><><><><><><><><> >>>> Raphael D. Mazor >>>> Biologist >>>> Southern California Coastal Water Research Project >>>> 3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110 >>>> Costa Mesa, CA 92626 >>>> >>>> Tel: 714-755-3235 >>>> Fax: 714-755-3299 >>>> Email: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > -- > Mitchell B. Cruzan, Associate Professor > Department of Biology > P.O. Box 751 > Portland State University > Portland, OR 97207 > > http://web.pdx.edu/~cruzan/ > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
