This blog article was written by Eva Amsen for F1000 who we interviewed earlier about the young journal, open peer review and publishing negative results. The paper currently in open peer review at F1000 research reports the failure to reproduce the STAP findings earlier this year – and may set an example for the importance for publishing ‘negative results’.
Anne Færch Nielsen is a molecular biologist from Denmark and she is an editor at the EMBO Journal. She received her PhD from Aarhus University and the Ribonucleic acid took her from there to Vienna and finally to Heidelberg. As an editor she is responsible for her chemicals and things that go on inside the cell. She followed the debate on the ‘STAP’ (Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) cells that rocked the stem cell field since the beginning of the year. We asked her about her thougths on the developments and the connection with post-publication peer review. All opinions are her own, not EMBO’s.
End of January two papers in Nature by Obokata et al. claimed a new method to create pluripotent stem cells in a surprisingly simple way. How was the first reaction in your professional environment to the big news? (more…)
Several online forums developed over the last years to foster open discussion of peer-reviewed scientific publications, PeerPub and PeerJ are two of them. The integrity of data is central to the discussion – assuming that discussed openly problems with data will helo to correct the scientific record.
But is this assumption justified?
Paul S. Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester in the United States, wanted to find out. He created a blog as a platform for people to submit questionable data along with the respective publications to him to be published and discussed in an open forum. (more…)
End of January, two Nature papers hit the media: Acid bath offers easy path to stem cells, explained Nature. Major Discovery, titled the BBC. A Breakthrough for Science, wrote the WSJ. A young japanese scientist, Haruko Obokata, from the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology had published results showing she could derive induced embryonic stem cells in a surprinsingly easy way.
The same day, Paul Knoefler, professor in the Department of Cell Biology at the UC Davis and one of the 50 most influential people in the stem cell field, wrote a critical post on his blog explaining the findings of Obokata. At the same time he raised six key questions, that according to him need to be answered before the importance of the study could be judged. A few days later the two publications started to face many questions, we summarized the developments during this phase in an earlier post.
Since then Knoefler run an informal poll on his blog where he invites the opinion of fellow stem cell experts to vote on the question “Do you believe in STAP stem cells?“. Participation the poll increased steadily from 400 to over 1000 in the latest edition as the topic grew more controversial over the past months. We accumulated the results from his polls in the graphic below.
He emphasizes that this polling is obviously not scientific but may reflect dynamic changes in the judgement of people as the discussion around the paper evolves. Without a formal post-publication peer review system in place, a sort of open peer review just happened as various research labs all around the world tried to reproduce the findings and share their results with the community openly. The papers might be retracted in the end but the stem cell field has certainly benefited from this community driven review.
Knoepfler, in one of his latest post, wrote what can be learned from this case, not only for the stem cell field but for biomedial science in general. Cellular autofluorescence and contamination might be issues restricted to certain fields but a few points, we think, can be important lessons for peer-reviewed research in general. Below is a trimmed list of these points made by Knoepfler:
- To be a good reviewer, data should always trump big names in importance. One of the problems exemplified by the STAP papers is that big name authors can sometimes sway reviewers inappropriately to be lenient on papers. In the end, as a good reviewer, you have to keep focused on the data, not the reputation of the authors.
- To editors, be extra-cautious about those “sexy” papers. A paper like either of the STAP ones is certainly exciting on first read and could have big impact. […] As with the reviewer caution above, editors should not be swayed by big name authors if the story seems too good to be true and if anything, the more excited an editor is about a paper the more cautious they should be in how they handle it. Paradoxical? Perhaps, but I think it’s true.
- To journals, give all manuscripts a thorough automated checkup. EMBO now reportedly has an automated screening process for manuscripts for image issues and EMBO editors have indicated that the STAP papers would not have passed. […] Clearly this kind of automated manuscript checkup should be standard procedure for all journals.
- Check the hype. There is nothing wrong with being excited about a paper or its potential impact, but be cautious about crossing the line to outright hype. Not everything is a “breakthrough” and that’s OK. Good, strong science doesn’t have to be a stunning breakthrough to have a positive impact. Scientists, journals, and institutions need to walk a fine line between advocating for our work publicly (which is needed) and overstating its importance, especially to the public or reporters. Many media folks are prone to hyping science as well. I believe that STAP was hugely hyped by many of the parties involved.
On the 3rd April PeerReviewWatch hosted a panel discussion at City University in London titled ‘Peer Review is broken. How can we fix it?’ In the audience were some members of F1000 Research, who participated actively in the discussion live and on Twitter. F1000 Research is an open access but importantly open peer-review journal – the most open of its kind today, says Eva Amsen, who is the outreach director of the journal here in London.
One day after the panel at City, I met her in a coffee shop near Goodge Street to talk about peer review.
Purposely, we left the panel discussion at City wide open for different aspects of peer review. Somehow the conversation came back to the topic of ‘open peer review‘ a couple of times. As F1000 Research is at the forefront of this development, I asked Eva to explain open peer review and the difference between doing it pre- or post-publication. (more…)
ROOM UPDATE: BG03 in the ground floor – enter at Northampton Sq
Tomorrow we are hosting a panel discussion here at City University in London around the question ‘Is Peer Review Broken?’. We want to discuss the IF and HOW but even more so ‘How can we fix it?’
If you are actively involved in peer review, wheather you are a PhD student, postdoc, principal investigator or a publisher or if you are a journalist who wants to join the debate – come along!
Our panelists will be:
- Tom Reller | Vice President and Head of Global Relations at Elsevier
- Richard Van Noorden | Senior Reporter at Nature
- Tiago Villanueva | Editorial Registrar at the BMJ
- Maria Kowalczuk | Deputy Biology Editor at BioMed Central
- Peter Ayton | Associate Dean of Research at City University
- Nikolaus Kriegeskorte | Principal Investigator at the MRC, Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
Chair: Connie St Louis | Director, City University Science Journalism MA and award winning journalist
Join the event, discuss with the panel and help to find constructive new ways for scientific peer review! There will be a panel discussion for 90 minutes and wine and nibbles after the event.
Location: City University London | EC1V0HB United Kingdom
Room BG03 [enter by Northampton Square, lower level]
On 4 October 2013, Science published a special issue on communication in science containing the ‘open access sting article’ that went on to cause huge controversy worldwide. The study consisted of John Bohannon deliberately submitting articles with mistakes to various open access journals. Out of the 304 journals the paper was submitted (more…)