In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journalScience, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing sexy papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary -that Id discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacterias DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter.And what do you know? They accepted it!
My sting exposed the seedy underside of subscription-based scholarly publishing, where some journals routinely lower their standards in this case by sending the paper to reviewers they knew would be sympathetic- in order to pump up their impact factor and increase subscription revenue. Maybe there are journals out there who do subscription-based publishing right but my experience should serve as a warning to people thinking about submitting their work to Science and other journals like it.
OK this isnt exactly what happened. I didnt actually write the paper. Far more frighteningly, it was a real paper that contained all of the flaws described above that was actually accepted, and ultimately published, byScience.
I am dredging the arsenic DNA story up again, because todaysScience contains a story by reporterJohn Bohannon describing a sting he conducted into the peer review practices of open access journals. He created a deeply flawed paper about molecules from lichens that inhibit the growth of cancer cells, submitted it to 304 open access journals under assumed names, and recorded what happened. Of the 255 journals that rendered decisions, 157 accepted the paper, most with no discernible sign of having actually carried out peer review. (PLOS ONE rejected the paper, and was one of the few to flag its ethical flaws).
The story is an interesting exploration of the ways peer review is, and isnt, implemented in todays biomedical publishing industry.Sadly, but predictably, Sciencespins this as a problem with open access. Here is their press release:
Spoof Paper Reveals the Wild West of Open-Access Publishing
A package of news stories related to this special issue ofScienceincludes a detailed description of astingoperation orchestrated by contributing news correspondent John Bohannon that exposes the dark side of open-access publishing. Bohannon explains how he created a spoofscientificreport, authored by made-up researchers from institutions that dont actually exist, and submitted it to 304 peer-reviewed, open-access journals around the world. His hoax paper claimed that a particular molecule slowed the growth of cancer cells, and it was riddled with obvious errors and contradictions. Unfortunately, despite the papers flaws, more open-access journals accepted it for publication (157) than rejected it (98). In fact, only 36 of the journals solicited responded with substantive comments that recognized the reportsscientific problems. (And, according to Bohannon, 16 of those journals eventually accepted the spoof paper despite their negative reviews.) The article reveals a Wild West landscape thats emerging in academic publishing, where journals and their editorial staffs arent necessarily who or what they claim to be. With hisstingoperation, Bohannon exposes some of the unscrupulous journals that are clearly not based in the countries they claim, though he also identifies some journals that seem to be doing open-access right.
Although it comes as no surprise to anyone who is bombarded every day by solicitations from new American journals of such-and-such seeking papers and offering editorial positions to anyone with an email account, the formal exposure of hucksters out there looking to make a quick buck off of scientists desires to get their work published is valuable. It is unacceptable that there are publishers several owned by big players in the subscription publishing world who claim that they are carrying out peer review, and charging for it, but not doing it.
But its nuts to construe this as a problem unique to open access publishing, if for no other reason than the study didnt do the control of submitting the same paper to subscription-based publishers (UPDATE: The author, Bohannon, emailed to say that, while his original intention was to look at all journals, practical constraints limited him to OA journals, and thatScience played no role in this decision).We obviously dont know what subscription journals would have done with this paper, but there is every reason to believe that a large number of them would also have accepted the paper (it has many features in common with the arsenic DNA paper after all). Like OA journals, a lot of subscription-based journals have businesses based on accepting lots of papers with little regard to their importance or even validity. When Elsevier and other big commercial publishers pitch their big deal, the main thing they push is the number of papers they have in their collection. And one look at many of their journals shows that they also will accept almost anything.
None of this will stop anti-open access campaigners(hello Scholarly Kitchen) from spinning this as a repudiation for enabling fraud. But the real story is that a fair number of journals who actually carried out peer review still accepted the paper, and the lesson people should take home from this story not that open access is bad, but that peer review is a joke. If a nakedly bogus paper is able to get through journals that actually peer reviewed it, think about how many legitimate, but deeply flawed, papers must also get through. Any scientist can quickly point to dozens of papers including, and perhaps especially, in high impact journals that are deeply, deeply flawed the arsenic DNA story is one of many recent examples. As you probably know there has been a lot of smoke lately about the reproducibility problem in biomedical science, in which people have found that a majority of published papers report facts that turn out not to be true.This all adds up to showing that peer review simply doesnt work.
And the real problem isnt that somefly-by-night publishers hoping to make a quick buck arent even doing peer review (although that is a problem). While some fringe OA publishers are playing a short con, subscription publishers are seasoned grifters playing a long con. They fleece the research community of billions of dollars every year by convincing them of something manifestly false that their journals and their peer review process are an essential part of science, and that we need them to filter out the good science and the good scientists from the bad. Like all good grifters playing the long con, they get us to believe they are doing something good for us something we need. They pocket our billions,with elegant sleight of hand, then get us to ignore the fact that crappy papers routinely get into high-profile journals simply because they deal with sexy topics.
But unlike the fly-by-night OA publishers who steal a little bit of money, the subscription publishers long con has far more serious consequences. Not only do they traffic in billions rather than thousands of dollars and deny the vast majority of people on Earth access to the findings of publicly funded research, the impact and glamour they sell us to make us willing participants in their grift has serious consequences. Every time they publish because it is sexy, and not because it is right, science is distorted. It distorts research. It distorts funding. And it often distorts public policy.
To suggest as Science(though not Bohannon) are trying to do that the problem with scientific publishing is that open access enables internet scamming is like saying that the problem with the international finance system is that it enables Nigerian wire transfer scams.
There are deep problems with science publishing. But the way to fix this is not to curtail open access publishing. It is to fix peer review.
First, and foremost, we need to get past the antiquated idea that the singular act of publication or publication in a particular journal should signal for all eternity that a paper is valid, let alone important. Even when people take peer review seriously, it is still just representing the views of 2 or 3 people at a fixed point in time. To invest the judgment of these people with so much meaning is nuts. And it's far worse when the process is distorted as it so often is by the desire to publish sexy papers, or to publish more papers, or because the wrong reviewers were selected, or because they were just too busy to do a good job. If we had, instead, a system where the review process was transparent and persisted for the useful life of a work (as Ive written about previously), none of the flaws exposed in Bohannons piece would matter.
Cross-posted from Michael Eisen's blog, This is NOT Junk