[情報] Should Peer Review Catch Fraud?
原文連結
https://goo.gl/D8MIhc
http://discovermagazine.com/
台灣學術界正在幫台灣,開拓另一條國際曝光度的管道
Is it the job of peer reviewers to detect scientific fraud?
I’ve been pondering this question for a while but lately my interest was
sparked by the case of a retracted cancer biology paper in the high-profile
journal Nature Cell Biology. Written by Taiwanese researchers Shih-Ting Cha
et al., the article was published on the 15th August and retracted just three
months later, after anonymous posters on PubPeer noticed several anomalies in
the results.
For instance, there was image duplication: the paper contained identical
images that were meant to be of different mice:
pubpeer
Along with other image anomalies found in the paper, these duplications are
evidence of either serious errors in manuscript preparation, or fraud.
Now, Nature Cell Biology is a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps three or four
independent scientific experts reviewed the Cha et al. paper before it was
published. Shouldn’t they have spotted these problems? Isn’t that the job
of reviewers? Opinions differ, as this (unscientific) poll of my Twitter
followers shows:
pollJust over half of the 719 respondents felt that reviewers ought to detect
evidence of manipulated images.
In my view, reviewers should spot issues like this, because if they don’t,
then the purpose of peer review is called into question. If peer review isn’
t able to detect these kinds of very serious problems in manuscripts, what
then is the point in it?
I understand why reviewers are often unable to spot these problems and
unwilling to even look for them: it would just take too much time. Reviewers
are all busy scientists who perform peer review essentially for free.
Scientists get paid for publishing peer-reviewed papers, not for reviewing
them. It’s not surprising that many reviews are limited in scope.
So as I see it, we as scientists need to decide if we’re serious about peer
review or not. If we believe that peer review is still the best way to ensure
that good science get published, we should encourage reviewers to do a
thorough job. This might require giving reviewers formal incentives.
On the other hand, if we’re not willing to invest in making peer review
work, then we should stop using it, and embrace the emerging alternative:
allow scientists to (self-)publish what they like, and leave it to
post-publication peer review (PPPR) services such as PubPeer to perform the
quality control.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 173.245.65.233
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/AfterPhD/M.1480316501.A.44E.html
※ 編輯: ACE520 (173.245.67.59), 11/28/2016 16:37:19
推
11/28 17:56, , 1F
11/28 17:56, 1F
推
11/28 18:06, , 2F
11/28 18:06, 2F
推
11/28 18:36, , 3F
11/28 18:36, 3F
→
11/28 18:38, , 4F
11/28 18:38, 4F
→
11/28 18:38, , 5F
11/28 18:38, 5F
→
11/28 18:40, , 6F
11/28 18:40, 6F
→
11/28 18:40, , 7F
11/28 18:40, 7F
→
11/28 18:43, , 8F
11/28 18:43, 8F
→
11/28 18:44, , 9F
11/28 18:44, 9F
→
11/28 18:46, , 10F
11/28 18:46, 10F
→
11/28 18:47, , 11F
11/28 18:47, 11F
→
11/28 18:48, , 12F
11/28 18:48, 12F
→
11/28 18:49, , 13F
11/28 18:49, 13F
→
11/28 18:49, , 14F
11/28 18:49, 14F
→
11/28 18:49, , 15F
11/28 18:49, 15F
→
11/28 18:50, , 16F
11/28 18:50, 16F
→
11/28 18:51, , 17F
11/28 18:51, 17F
→
11/28 18:52, , 18F
11/28 18:52, 18F
→
11/28 18:53, , 19F
11/28 18:53, 19F
→
11/28 18:54, , 20F
11/28 18:54, 20F
→
11/28 18:55, , 21F
11/28 18:55, 21F
→
11/28 18:56, , 22F
11/28 18:56, 22F
→
11/28 18:57, , 23F
11/28 18:57, 23F
→
11/28 18:58, , 24F
11/28 18:58, 24F
→
11/28 18:59, , 25F
11/28 18:59, 25F
→
11/28 20:03, , 26F
11/28 20:03, 26F
→
11/28 20:04, , 27F
11/28 20:04, 27F
→
11/28 20:04, , 28F
11/28 20:04, 28F
→
11/28 20:32, , 29F
11/28 20:32, 29F
→
11/28 20:32, , 30F
11/28 20:32, 30F
推
11/28 20:39, , 31F
11/28 20:39, 31F
→
11/28 20:39, , 32F
11/28 20:39, 32F
→
11/28 20:40, , 33F
11/28 20:40, 33F
推
11/28 21:01, , 34F
11/28 21:01, 34F
→
11/28 21:02, , 35F
11/28 21:02, 35F
推
11/28 21:07, , 36F
11/28 21:07, 36F
→
11/28 21:07, , 37F
11/28 21:07, 37F
推
11/28 21:09, , 38F
11/28 21:09, 38F
推
11/28 21:12, , 39F
11/28 21:12, 39F
還有 26 則推文
→
11/28 21:47, , 66F
11/28 21:47, 66F
→
11/28 21:47, , 67F
11/28 21:47, 67F
→
11/28 21:48, , 68F
11/28 21:48, 68F
→
11/28 21:50, , 69F
11/28 21:50, 69F
→
11/28 21:51, , 70F
11/28 21:51, 70F
→
11/28 21:52, , 71F
11/28 21:52, 71F
→
11/28 21:53, , 72F
11/28 21:53, 72F
→
11/28 21:54, , 73F
11/28 21:54, 73F
→
11/28 21:55, , 74F
11/28 21:55, 74F
→
11/28 21:56, , 75F
11/28 21:56, 75F
→
11/28 21:56, , 76F
11/28 21:56, 76F
→
11/28 21:56, , 77F
11/28 21:56, 77F
→
11/28 21:57, , 78F
11/28 21:57, 78F
→
11/28 21:58, , 79F
11/28 21:58, 79F
→
11/28 21:58, , 80F
11/28 21:58, 80F
→
11/28 21:59, , 81F
11/28 21:59, 81F
推
11/28 21:59, , 82F
11/28 21:59, 82F
→
11/28 22:01, , 83F
11/28 22:01, 83F
→
11/28 22:01, , 84F
11/28 22:01, 84F
→
11/28 22:02, , 85F
11/28 22:02, 85F
→
11/28 22:03, , 86F
11/28 22:03, 86F
→
11/28 22:03, , 87F
11/28 22:03, 87F
→
11/28 22:04, , 88F
11/28 22:04, 88F
推
11/28 22:06, , 89F
11/28 22:06, 89F
推
11/28 22:11, , 90F
11/28 22:11, 90F
推
11/28 22:36, , 91F
11/28 22:36, 91F
→
11/28 22:36, , 92F
11/28 22:36, 92F
推
11/29 00:01, , 93F
11/29 00:01, 93F
→
11/29 00:01, , 94F
11/29 00:01, 94F
→
11/29 00:01, , 95F
11/29 00:01, 95F
→
11/29 12:11, , 96F
11/29 12:11, 96F
→
11/29 12:11, , 97F
11/29 12:11, 97F
推
11/29 12:50, , 98F
11/29 12:50, 98F
→
11/29 12:50, , 99F
11/29 12:50, 99F
→
11/29 12:50, , 100F
11/29 12:50, 100F
推
11/29 12:55, , 101F
11/29 12:55, 101F
推
11/30 17:59, , 102F
11/30 17:59, 102F
推
11/30 19:34, , 103F
11/30 19:34, 103F
→
11/30 19:34, , 104F
11/30 19:34, 104F
→
11/30 19:34, , 105F
11/30 19:34, 105F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文：
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 2 篇)：
AfterPhD 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
50
130
