The Scientist > August 2010 > Peer Review Rejected

The August 2010 Issue Of The Scientist Features

Great Articles About Peer Review

Editorial > Peer Review and the Age of Aquarius / Sarah Greene

[snip]

More than 300 years since the invention of peer review and 30 years post-Web, it’s time to act. Lest we forget, the Web was originally designed to disrupt scientific publishing, as recently noted by Michael Clarke in the Scholarly Kitchen blog.

The first major disruption has been open access (OA) publishing, a prerequisite for the new metrics, which thrive on increasing numbers of papers and data. And despite its fledgling status, OA has ushered in a second major disruption to the scientific establishment: post-publication peer review (PPPR), in a variety of experiments and formulations, pioneered by BioMedCentral and PubMedCentral.

[snip]

 Thus, transparency and ongoing scrutiny by a much wider community can minimize the failures of traditional peer review (depicted on the cover of this issue), and can also bring to light innovations and discoveries that may have been ahead of the curve at the time of publication. Robust involvement by the community is required, and proposed “reputation systems” may be the key to ensure rewards for commenting and revising.

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57580/#ixzz0vqVNNNyq]

Article 1 > Breakthroughs from the Second Tier / The Scientist Staff

Peer review isn’t perfect— meet 5 high-impact papers that should have ended up in bigger journal

[snip]

One of the most commonly voiced criticisms of traditional peer review is that it discourages truly innovative ideas, rejecting field-changing papers while publishing ideas that fall into a status quo and the “hot” fields of the day—think RNAi, etc. Another is that it is nearly impossible to immediately spot the importance of a paper—to truly evaluate a paper, one needs months, if not years, to see the impact it has on its field.

In the following pages, we present some papers that suggest these two criticisms are correct, at least in part. These studies were published in lower-profile journals (all with current impact factors of 6 or below), suggesting they should have had less of an impact. But these papers eventually accumulated at least 1,000 citations. Many were rejected from higher-tier journals. All changed their fields forever.

Twenty years ago, David Kaplan of the Case Western Reserve University had a manuscript rejected, and with it came what he calls a “ridiculous” comment. “The comment was essentially that I should do an x-ray crystallography of the molecule before my study could be published,” he recalls, but the study was not about structure. The x-ray crystallography results, therefore, “had nothing to do with that,” he says. To him, the reviewer was making a completely unreasonable request to find an excuse to reject the paper.

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/30/1/]

Article 2 > I Hate Your Paper / Jef Akst

Kaplan says these sorts of manuscript criticisms are a major problem with the current peer review system, particularly as it’s employed by higher-impact journals. Theoretically, peer review should “help [authors] make their manuscript better,” he says, but in reality, the cutthroat attitude that pervades the system results in ludicrous rejections for personal reasons—if the reviewer feels that the paper threatens his or her own research or contradicts his or her beliefs, for example—or simply for convenience, since top journals get too many submissions and it’s easier to just reject a paper than spend the time to improve it. Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same, and it’s a “problem,” Kaplan says, “that can very quickly become censorship.”

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/36/1/]

Associated Podcast /  Comments Available At

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/36/1/#audio1]

Article 3 > Is Peer Review Broken?

Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What's wrong with peer review?

[http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/] / Subscriber Access

Related > Citations: Too Many, or Not Enough?  / William J. Pearce

[snip]

The introduction of PubMed in the mid-1990s revolutionized the process of finding and retrieving relevant literature. With much of the drudgery and inconvenience gone, long lists of potentially important publications could be compiled quickly and easily on any computer with an Internet connection. The parallel development of reference database management software further expanded the ability to compile and organize large numbers of abstracts, and ultimately article PDFs.

On one hand, these impressive tools greatly facilitated preparation of comprehensive literature reviews with unprecedented breadth. On the other hand, easy access to so many publications reinforced the temptation to read each paper cited less critically, and sometimes not at all. Thus was born the practice of citing numerous diverse publications to support a point of discussion, instead of citing the one or two most relevant publications with the greatest impact on a field, as if quantity and quality of citations were interchangeable and equally persuasive. [snip]

[more]

[http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/8/1/29/1/]

>>> As Some May Know I've Long Had An Interest In Alternative Peer Review >>>

"Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship"

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt]

> >> It's A Large PPT (200+ Slides) >>>

>>> But IMHO ... Well Worth The Experience [:-)] <<<

A Synopsis Of The Presentation In Article Form >>>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Easy_Pieces]

"Peer Review in the Internet Age: Five (5) Easy Pieces," Against the Grain 16, no. 3 (June 2004): 50, 52-55.

Self-archived at

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/FiveEasyPieces.pdf]

See Also

> Invisible Hand(s): Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving

[http://scholarship20.blogspot.com/2007/11/invisible-hands-quality-assurance-in.html]

>> Quality Assurance in the Age of Author Self-Archiving 

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/ACRL2005.ppt] / 110+ Slides

[http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/ACRL2005.pdf]

"It's Not About Publication; It's About Ideas"

NYTimes > Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age

Friends/

[snip]

TRIP GABRIEL / August 1, 2010 / NYTimes

[snip]

Professors used to deal with plagiarism by admonishing students to give credit to others and to follow the style guide for citations, and pretty much left it at that.

But these cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed

It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.

Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy, of course. But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students — who came of age with music file-sharing, Wikipedia and Web-linking — understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image.

[snip]

Ms. Brookover, who works at the campus library, has pondered the differences between researching in the stacks and online. “Because you’re not walking into a library, you’re not physically holding the article, which takes you closer to ‘this doesn’t belong to me,’ ” she said. Online, “everything can belong to you really easily.”

[snip]

In an interview, ... [Susan D. Blum University of Notre Dame anthropologist ... and author of "Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture" [Cornell Universiy Press, 2009], said the idea of an author whose singular effort creates an original work is rooted in Enlightenment ideas of the individual. It is buttressed by the Western concept of intellectual property rights as secured by copyright law. But both traditions are being challenged.

[snip]

In an interview, she said the idea of an author whose singular effort creates an original work is rooted in Enlightenment ideas of the individual. It is buttressed by the Western concept of intellectual property rights as secured by copyright law. But both traditions are being challenged.

[more]

Source

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html]

A few years ago I gave a keynote at the 3rd International Plagiarism Conference / 23 - 25 June 2008 / City Campus East, Northumbria University / Newcastle-upon-tyne, UK /

"Disruptive Scholarship: An Idea Whose Time Has Come: (Re)Use / (Re)Mix / (Re)New"

Abstract

Hadrian's Wall is a stone and turf fortification built by the Roman Empire across the width of modern-day England. ... [It was] 117 kilometres long,

... [I]ts width and height [were] dependent on the construction materials [that] ... were available nearby.

... [T]he wall in the east follow[ed] the outcrop of a hard, resistant igneous diabase rock escarpment ... Local limestone was used in the construction, except for ... section[s] in the west ... where turf was used instead ... .

The Broad Wall was initially built with a clay-bonded rubble core and mortared dressed rubble facing stones, but this seems to have made it vulnerable to collapse, and repair with a mortared core was sometimes necessary.... [I]n time ... [Hadrian's] Wall was abandoned and fell into ruin. Over the centuries and even into the twentieth century a large proportion of the stone was reused in other local buildings.

Throughout history, humans have (re)used local resources to create not only buildings and fortifications, but monuments, roads, and a wide variety of other structures. For countless generations, artists, composers, and writers have freely incorporated elements from local and distant cultures to create new visual, musical, and textual forms.

In The Web 2.0 World, the open (re)combination of multiple media has become commonplace in many venues, practices that Lawrence Lessig [snip], founder of Creative Commons [snip]and others, would characterize as emblematic of a 'Remix ' or 'Read/Write' culture. Indeed, from his point of view, “the health, progress, and wealth creation of a culture is fundamentally tied to this participatory remix process” [snip]

In the recently-released Horizon Report 2008 - a joint publication of the New Media Consortium (NMC) and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), six emerging information technologies and practices that are expected to significantly impact educational organizations are profiled: Grassroots Video, Collaborative Webs, Mobile Broadband, Data Mashups, Collaborative Intelligence, and Social Operating Systems.

In this presentation, we will review the Read/Write Traditions of the Arts, Humanities, and Sciences; analyze key Past / Present / Future Participatory Technologies; and explore the potential of Web 2.0 for creating/fostering Disruptive Learning / Scholarship / Teaching in the 21st century.

The Director's Cut of the (150+ Slides) PPT is available from my _Scholarship 2.0_ blog at

[http://bit.ly/9riXmc]

I hope The Title and Abstract indicate that That I Have A Different View Of The P-Word [:-)

Regards,

/Gerry

“Food Deserts”: Fertile Ground for Socially-Minded Entrepreneurs

Adminstrator's note: The following piece was written by SSL Guest Contributor Ifeoma Ajunwa and was reposted from RightRespect. Ifeoma is about to begin her Ph.D at Columbia University in Sociology. She can be reached at iajunwa@gmail.com for comments.)


In honor of Maryland’s passage of the nation’s first “Benefit Corporation” bill signed into law today, we have collaborated with our contributor Ifeoma Ajunwa to address an area ripe for socially-minded entrepreneurs, eliminating food deserts and promoting the right to food here in the United States.

Access to healthful food is a human rights issue. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[i] which is adopted by the United Nations affirmed that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food.” “Food deserts[ii]” are community areas with little or no access to affordable, quality, and nutritious food. These communities, found in such cities as Detroit, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Newark, and most of which are largely populated by blacks and Latinos, suffer from a dearth of supermarkets, and can only rely on fast-food chains and corner stores that sell mostly liquor and some produce at exorbitant prices. About 23 million people, of whom about 6.5 million are children, inhabit low-income urban and rural spaces where the nearest supermarket is more than a mile away — keeping in mind that many low-income families can not afford a car. For an extreme example, nearly 633,000 of Chicago’s population live in communities that lack nearby supermarkets[iii].

Recently, First Lady Michelle Obama penned a cover story for Newsweek magazine in which she detailed her fight against the growing rates of obesity in school age American children. Obesity brings with it a host of health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Further, high obesity rates negatively impact the economy as millions of tax-payer dollars are spent each year in treating the chronic diseases that stem from it. Since, as the First Lady noted, a third of American children are either overweight or obese, the fight against obesity is a matter of national concern.

In an effort to combat this problem, the First Lady has launched “Let’s Move[iv],” a program that employs several different tactics to help children and their parents towards the goal of a healthy weight. The strategies include: offering parents the tools to make better food choices for their children; a push towards more healthful food options at schools via the Healthier US Schools Challenge Program and the updating of the Child Nutrition Act; more physical activities for children; and the elimination of “food deserts.”

As part of the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the Administration proposes the Healthy Food Financing Initiative which will invest $400 million a year to fund innovative projects that bring grocery stores to “food deserts” and other underserved areas. The Administration also plans to use grants to entice farmer’s markets and fresh food services to areas where they are currently lacking.

Not only will the elimination of “food deserts” boost the health of many of America’s population, the financial incentives for doing so will also revitalize the economy by providing new opportunities for entrepreneurship.

There are several pioneers who can serve as positive examples for entrepreneurs willing to take advantage of the fertile business climate of “food deserts.” One such trailblazer is Karriem Beyah[v], who runs Farmers Best Market, a store he recently opened in a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood of Chicago known as Back of the Yards, and which had been abandoned by large supermarket chains. Another is William Allen[vi], a 2008 recipient of the MacArthur “Genius” award who founded Growing Power, a non-profit farming business. Through Growing Power[vii], Allen uses both rural and urban farming — at sites like Merton, Milwaukee, and Chicago — to bring fresh produce and meat products to low-income urban residents at a reduced price. His organization also offers internships that train minorities, immigrants and other interested participants to produce healthful food in their communities.

With the Obama administration wiling to invest millions of dollars to making the steps of all Americans a bit lighter, socially-minded entrepreneurs need only find a “desert” that needs cultivating to get their businesses off and running.

[i] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
[ii] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/
[iii] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900947,00.html#ixzz0kAnplugn
[iv] http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letsmove.gov%2F
[v] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900947,00.html
[vi] http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.4537249/
[vii] http://www.growingpower.org/about_us.htm

In (Slight) Defense of Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews’ blunder following President Obama’s State of the Union Address is by now common knowledge to political junkies. But for those that missed it, Matthews was so enamored with Obama’s speech that, well, he “forgot [the President] was black for an hour:”

It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is president of the United States and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it.

For Matthews, Obama’s speech was significant because, for that moment in time, he was stripped of his “blackness.” Obama wasn’t race-less, per se, but instead no longer black. The faux pas falls under the heading of colorblind ideology—i.e. the idea that racial inequality and division will disappear if we just stop obsessing over racial differences. According to the ideology’s adherents, adopting a “colorblind” outlook—pretending we don’t notice differences in skin pigment—is the pathway to a more equal, democratic civil society.

The problem with this framework in general, and Matthews’ comment in particular, is the effective whitewashing and subsuming of different cultures. In other words, the colorblind rhetoric can only be realized if all races, creeds and colors simply adopt and are assimilated into the dominant white discourse. The ideology of colorblindness doesn’t call for a new, radical framework of, say, American racial identity. No, by contrast, colorblind ideology accepts whiteness as a given from which “others” must assimilate. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, echoed by G.D. in Postbourgie’s recent Podcast, this failure to investigate whiteness is deeply problematic. Colorblind ideology obfuscates the intersection of race, power, and privilege by accepting the dominant racial identity as the standard from which all other races must acclimate. To accept a “colorblind” framework, therefore, is to accept the superiority and dominance of a singular racial identity.

Still, to defend Matthews ever-so-slightly, I do think his heart was in the right place. Look, the guy never thought he’d see an African-American leading the free world. For Matthews and plenty others of his generation, the idea of a black president was—until last year—unfathomable. So, in some respects, the intent of Matthews comment was to laud the normalization of a black man in a position of power. Which, in all fairness, is pretty remarkable. Just because Chris Matthews failed to introspectively challenge his own entrenched racial identity—no small task, if you ask me—doesn’t mean we should dismiss his astute observation wholesale.

Was Matthews’ commentary racist? Maybe—but only if we accept the sophisticated critique of colorblind ideology. Yet the average white American doesn’t exactly think about racial identity like this on a day-to-day basis. And, perhaps, it is this widespread pattern—not Matthews’ individual blunder—that lies at the root of the problem.

The Other Detroit

Wunderkammer Magazine recently commissioned me to write a piece on Detroit for their Politics and Society section. I took the opportunity to write about a side of the city that gets significantly less attention in the popular media—the “other” Detroit, if you will. It ended up being a bit too long to post here in its entirety, but it’s worth a read nonetheless.

An excerpt:

I take Interstate 96 eastbound from Ann Arbor. It’s the first warm day of 2008, and the combination of a bright sun and light breeze makes for a beautiful spring afternoon. After 35 miles of Midwestern nothing, I reach the city limits of Detroit. Small, decrepit housing lines the edges of the Southfield Freeway as I approach the exit for North Rosedale, a neighborhood located on the northwest side of the city. As I pull into the local Community House and park—the only privately owned park in the city—the smell of freshly cut grass is almost intrusive. A youth softball game is underway, and parents lounge in folding chairs. Along the edges of the park, residents—predominantly African-Americans—walk their dogs by large, single-family English Tudors. Almost without exception, each two-story house on each tree-lined street adorns a perfectly manicured lawn and a large wooden front door. It’s a middle-class oasis. A distinctly suburban feel, in fact. But it’s not the suburbs. It’s Detroit.

[...]

North Rosedale Park is the anti-slum. A middle-class majority remained after racial turnover, separating North Rosedale from countless other urban neighborhoods throughout the country. Homes are large, and social cohesion throughout the neighborhood is strong. Residents are tremendously proud of their neighborhood, and perhaps more importantly, committed to the city they call home.

[...]

No story or investigative report has captured this side of Detroit, the North Rosedale side. It’s not the bombed out train station, nor is it the urban prairie. It’s not the empty factory, nor is it the large housing project. It’s not the homeless man pushing his cart down a desolate downtown, nor is it the young woman waiting in line for a welfare check.

No, it’s the daily struggle of the urban middle class, the plight of a forgotten population. It’s the neighborhood where Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm lived briefly before ultimately moving to the suburbs. It’s half a mile from where Detroit historian Thomas Sugrue grew up, a neighborhood his parents hoped to one day “be wealthy enough” to call home. It’s the tree-lined streets, the well-maintained community park. It’s the colorful gardens and golden retrievers. It’s the uneasy, yet unwavering middle class in an otherwise unsettling and unsure urban abyss.

It’s the other Detroit.

Special thanks to my editor, Dara Lind, for her encouraging comments and thoughtful critiques.

Apple Pies, McDonalds, and Gender O’ My

Am I the only that finds it a bit ironic that the restaurant that has been criticized as the culinary culprit in the breakdown of the American family has returned to traditional gender roles in their advertisements? Or at least traditional gender expectations? Yes, McDonalds has been pointed out in the lineup as being many families' route, or rather escape, from having home-cooked meals around the dinner table as stable, nuclear family ought to be doing. I do not mean to single out McDonalds as if those who run the company orchestrated this phenomenon by themselves. But given the general ratchet effect that has taken effect in the number of activities we cram into a single, 24 hour period and changing expectations of members of society as whole, fast food restaurants in general have been seen as enablers of this decline. And when you're the biggest and baddest bully of them all, you tend to take the rap more so than the others.

So what is this post about? Well, my apple pie wrapper pictured above. The apple pie has been a staple and trademark American food since the days of our grandparents. You may recall the old saying, "As American as apple pie." Though mostly a white, middle class story, it did not stay within this demographic group alone. It was not only a gastronomic creation; it was a symbol of American domestic life for many years, both here and abroad. Many home economics books of yore typically employed different depictions of the apple pie on their covers while inside they outlined how women ought to fill their roles of wife, mother, and homebody. I took my favorite oldest niece (our running joke as I only have two nieces and she's the oldest. Get it? Good) to McDonald's for lunch when I was in Miami. We both got apple pies and I saw the wrapper. And I was like, wow. Seriously. "Mommy didn't have time." Really. Kind of pissed me off: I'm not lovin' it.

The kitchen, even in the advertisement for the quintessential fast food restaurant, remains the woman's domain. In fact, one may can interpret the reading as sanctioning women for bring to busy. Though some conservatives, as I say above, demonized these restaurants for allowing women to spend even less time at home, and especially in the kitchen, McDonalds and traditionalists seem to be of one mind. McDonald's has not gone as far as the old saying, "A woman's place is to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen," but the general picture, I argue, is still there.

As a practical matter, it takes time to bake an apple pie when you do it right. But, as this advertisement suggests, let's put a child and/or husband not having solely one on mommy.

This post is not meant to be particularly earth-shattering. Rather, it fits with my general thinking about how reified our thinking about gender roles and expectations are and how best are we to continue moving forward in contesting, blurring, and crossing these boundaries. Personally, I feel that there is still much work to be done. However, I know that this is preaching to the choir members who also serve on the usher board on alternative Sundays and volunteer for the Sheppard's care ministry (to use and extend that old adage). In commenting on my post "How Not So Far We've Come: (Still) "Doing Gender"" where I discuss the gendered picture on baby changing stations in bathrooms, one of our more insightful readers said that things will change only when men start to care. I partially agree with her. I think that things will change when both men and women no longer take pictures, phrases, or depictions like these for granted.

The Insolence of Understanding: Part II

It has been a while since my last post. Reason: graduate school is, for lack of better words, no joke. Nevertheless, we prevail. A few weeks ago I wrote a post entitled, "The Insolence of Understanding," as a reaction to seeing an advertisement for wearing baldcaps in support of those with cancer. The post was not to question their motives or intent; personally, I believe their cause (raising money for cancer research and support of those with cancer) is admirable. What I questioned was the idea and/or action of dawning on another's identity, persona, or physical characteristic for a cause when one has the freedom to eschew any such constraint, hindrance, or restriction it places on one's abilities. I update my thoughts on this with another example that I think makes my point clearer. Thus, I turn to one episode from my favorite show of the Fall season: gLee!*

In the episode, "Wheels," the members of the gLee club are ordered, or rather sentenced, to be confined to a wheel chair for at least three hours a day while at school. At first, I was like "LOL ROFL" because this "exercise" was supposed to create team unity as the other members did not show any concern for not having enough money to rent a wheel chair accessible bus so that one of their group member's, Artie, who is wheelchair bound could come. Yet when I watched the show again, the same feeling that I had when I saw the baldcaps on the T and Will Smith's fat suit on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. It was supposed to be both a comedic as well as a teaching moment. I mean, at the end of the show, they sung Ike and Tina Turner's "Proud Mary" in wheelchairs, starting it off with Finn saying, "This one's for you Artie." I mean, they did a good job, but the feeling did not leave me. Were the wheelchairs more to help Mercedes, Rachel, Puck, Finn, and the others understand Artie's plight or just props or accessories for the group to use while performing? The inability to separate the two options from one another or even choose the former as the right question to ask shows evidence for my questioning of these "moments."







I ask again, what exactly is being said when we use other people's situation as teaching moments for privileged individuals. The directors had Artie seem enthusiastic about the fact that his friends will be joining him in being wheelchair bound. I am not sure exactly what his response is supposed to mean. As I argued in part I, "we must realize that we do not become who we pretend to be but also that who we pretend to be are real. It is the mismatch between the show of solidarity and the reality of the life of those individuals that I find most troubling. The insolence of understanding." One key example is the moment when Finn became frustrated with Quinn's constant nagging for money for the baby and mounting doctor bills, GOT UP out of his wheelchair and left Quinn and the others behind, invoking his latent, ever-present ability to walk.

To speak more generally, I think there is a difference between detailing the life experiences of others and walking a few days, in this case, hours in someone else's shoes and then reporting it as one's lived experiences. This may be a fine line, but I believe that it is a concrete line nonetheless. When we begin to speak of other's experiences as our own without questioning the distance that exists between oneself and others, we begin to get into murky waters.

*(Shani, Community is Good, but gLee is Definitely Way Better)