Problems with Peer Review

There has always been a potential problem with Peer Review. Namely the Reviewers are not always pristine. The latest example is extraordinary.

In the Annals of Internal Medicine an author harmed in the process writes:

Dr. Doctor,I am aware that you recently admitted to wrongly publishing, as your own, a scientific research paper that I had submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine. After serving as an external peer reviewer on our manuscript, you published that same manuscript in a different medical journal a few months later. You removed the names of the authors and the research site, replacing them with the names of your coauthors and your institution.It took 5 years from conceptualization of the study to publication of the primary analysis (1). This study was my fellowship project and required a lot of work. It took effort to find the right research team, design the study, raise the funds, get approvals, recruit and create materials for study participants, run the diet classes, conduct the study visits, compile and analyze the study data, and write the initial report. The work was funded by the U.S. government and my academic institution. The secondary analysis that you reviewed for Annals used specialized methods that took my colleagues many years to develop and validate. In all, this body of research represents at least 4000 hours of work. When you published our work as your own (2), you were falsely claiming credit for all of this work and for the expertise gained by doing it.As you must certainly know, stealing is wrong. It is especially problematic in scientific research. The peer-review process depends on the ethical behavior of reviewers. Physicians and patients depend on the integrity of the process. Such cases of theft, scientific fraud, and plagiarism cannot be tolerated because they are harmful and unethical. Those who engage in such behavior can typically expect their professional careers to be ruined: Loss of reputation, loss of employment, and ineligibility for future research funding are the norm. Coauthors are also collaborators in the fraud, and such losses potentially apply to them as well. All the previous publications of those who steal others' work become suspect, and it reflects poorly on their training institutions, current employers, collaborators, and mentors.

 

It seems that one of the Reviewers just took the paper and put names on it. Legally this may be a bit more than plagiarism, especially if it relates to Government funded work. 

I wonder how this one will turn out. Sorry for the original author!

Peer Review: A Generational Difference

Peer Review serves a purpose if and only if it results in an improved presentation of factual research. A good peer review should be accomplished as follows:

1. Managed by a know and credible Editor
2. Performed by those expert in the field in an unbiased manner
3. Provide any objections in a credible fashion and if the work was done previously the reviewer should present references substantiating such claims.
4. An ability to seek an arbitration if there is a material difference of opinion.
5. Some openness on the part of who the reviewers are.

In fact I have often argued for full openness in knowing who the reviewers are. That way the reviewer puts their reputation on the line in the review. One could keep the process confidential within the individuals but not knowing who the reviewer is often leads to negative reviews with no basis. However in all cases the process is confidential.

Now along comes PubPeer. In a Wired article they are taking the approach of the current generation, namely allowing anyone in a totally anonymous manner to review an article. It is akin to so many other social media mores, namely throwing an unsubstantiated opinions on a wall and seeing what sticks. It is however generational, it is the point of view that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else. In fact a knowledgeable reviewer is a benefit, some reviewer with a bone to pick is not.

They state:

PubPeer works because we allow anonymous comments. Without that anonymity, most scientists would fear professional retribution if they criticized their peers’—or perhaps their future employers’—work. But with that anonymity, our users have generated a steady stream of comments highlighting problems in basic scientific research on any number of topics: cancer, stem cells, diabetes, and more. 

I would strongly disagree. In fact public anonymity just creates noise. There is no professionalism and no way to determine whether the reviewer has any true expertise in this area. 

At another extreme is the posting of one's research as it is in progress and allowing people to send the writer their comments. It creates a dialog, it allows for the correcting of errors, before publication.  Yes that approach is different and it flies in the face of first to publish but it is a research community approach. 

In my opinion the above mentioned approach of anonymous reviewers is highly counter productive. Yet it is an expression of that generational view that every child get on the Honor Roll, and perhaps we can send out bumper stickers, "My Child is an Anonymous Reviewer".