The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Science Journals  (Read 5480 times)

Offline vj_tu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Science Journals
« on: 23/01/2006 15:10:32 »
I am assigned to compare the journals e.g. FEBS Letters, Nature and Current Opinion ,The Jurnal of Biological Chemistry and Journal of Immunological Methods.

1) What I wonder is how many types of the style of presentation in    journals?Can anyone give me examples so I can categorise these journals.

2)What happens in the intervening period from the submission of paper for publication and the acceptance for publication?

Please help a damsel in distress!!


 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5337
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #1 on: 24/01/2006 14:14:42 »
I would start by reading this article about the peer review process.

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline vj_tu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #2 on: 24/01/2006 15:20:37 »
That enlightens me. Thx a lot, Chris.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #3 on: 25/01/2006 12:55:37 »
grrrr @ peer reviews
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #4 on: 26/01/2006 15:40:28 »
Once you have familiarised yourself with the peer review system, go read the work of Hwang from Korea on Stem Cells fraud, and the scientist from Olso claiming Nsads reduce the risk of cancer and ask yourself how, if this system is so robust, does this garbage get past their panel of peer reviewers?

Several of the so called respected science journals have now become discredited along with the fraudulent papers they helped to publish. But what of all the genuine research papers that these cretins turned down in favour of this bad science?

Andrew

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline MayoFlyFarmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/wiguyinmn
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #5 on: 28/01/2006 20:17:49 »
as far as styles of presentation, every journal is different in some way or another.  taht is why the software endnote is around.  so you don't have to rewrite the paper 10 times to submit it to 10 different journals, it kind of does the formatting for you.

for you 2nd question.  Do you mean what happens with the paper (review process) after submission, or what happens with the lab who sumitted the paper until thier paper is accepted?

Are YOUR mice nude? ;)
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Science Journals
« Reply #6 on: 31/01/2006 10:25:50 »
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0601.../060116-6.html

Journals scolded for slack disclosure rules

Even high-profile papers may violate conflict-of-interest policies. Erika Check


The Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked Science and Nature to "tighten" their policies.
© NatureThe fallout from the scandal surrounding Korean stem-cell research has sparked a call for journals to toughen up their financial disclosure policies.

The call follows Science's retraction of two papers based on work from the lab of Woo Suk Hwang, of Seoul National University in South Korea. Science's formal retraction was issued on 12 January, two days after the university's investigative panel found that both papers were fabricated (see 'Verdict: Hwang's human stem cells were all fakes').

Before the papers were published, both Hwang and his former colleague, Gerald Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, applied for patents based on their cloning and stem-cell technologies (see 'Schatten in the spotlight').

Should the patents be granted, the scientists could make a fortune from the techniques. But no disclosure of these potential conflicts of financial interest appeared in either of the Science papers1,2, nor in a 2005 Nature paper about a cloned dog3 that also bears both men's names.

Stepping in

Editors of the journals say they are investigating whether the authors complied with conflict-of-interest rules. But an independent critic says both publications should revise their policies and give them more clout, to prevent such omissions in future.

On 12 January, Merrill Goozner of the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest sent letters to Science and Nature asking them to "tighten" their policies. He called Science's policy "weak and ineffectual" and said the journal should publish all conflicts of interest "that might bear a relationship to the subject matter of the contribution".

Goozner also advised Science and Nature to impose a three-year ban on authors who violate their policies, as the US journal Environmental Health Perspectives does.

The rules

Science requires authors submitting papers to the journal to check a box if they have "a planned, pending, or awarded patent on this work by you or your institution". There is then a space for authors to provide details.

Natasha Pinol, a spokeswoman for Science's publisher, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says this box was not checked for Hwang's 2004 paper. But Hwang or someone on his team did check it for their 2005 paper. No details were provided about the potential conflict of interest, however, and no disclosure appeared in the published paper.

When asked why Science decided not to print any disclosure information, editor Donald Kennedy replied: "Normally we check the relationship between the topic of the patent and the substance of the paper. In this case the box was checked, but no description was given." The journal would not clarify whether it pressed the authors for further details or not.

Nature has a very similar policy, asking authors to declare whether they have "patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication"; disclosures are published with the paper. For the 2005 paper about a cloned dog, Hwang ticked a box for "no competing interests" on behalf of all the authors.

Philip Campbell, Nature's editor-in-chief, says that the apparent breach of the journal's policy is being taken up with authors. If it is confirmed, the journal will publish a correction.

Missing disclosures

Critics say the Hwang debacle has exposed general shortcomings in the journals' conflict-of-interest policies. In July 2004, the Center for Science in the Public Interest released a report on papers in four journals over three months. The report found that authors had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in 8% of the articles; a finding that spurred several journals, including Environmental Health Perspectives, to alter their policies.

"It occurs disturbingly often," Goozner says. "Now you are seeing people not disclosing in some very high-profile cases, and this is possible because the policies of Science and Nature do not have teeth."

Pinol says that Science is looking at its financial conflict-of-interest policy as part of an overall review after the retractions. In an e-mail, Kennedy says, "We are certainly looking at the problem, with an expectation that we can institute some changes."

The Hwang affair has led Nature to revisit its policies on the data needed to support cloning papers (see 'Standards for papers on cloning'), and it is also reviewing procedures that concern image manipulation. Campbell adds that the journal is considering Goozner's points about conflicts of interest.
__________________

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Science Journals
« Reply #7 on: 23/10/2007 08:13:27 »
Sham peer review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sham peer review or malicious peer review, a concept explained by Roland Chalifoux in Medscape General Medicine, is the practice of using a medical peer review process to remove a doctor who is seen to be disruptive, too great an advocate for change, or competitive with other doctors within the same institution.[1] While technically sham peer review is a concept that applies to every discipline, it has most commonly been applied to the healthcare industry recently.

In healthcare, the lines between peer review of physicians and performance appraisal by non-peers has been blurred. Administrators, nurses, and even patients play a role in performance appraisals, while peer review is a system that is only supposed to involve the physicians themselves.

Scientific peer review has traditionally been held to be achievable only when research and investigations are able to be examined openly. Medical peer review, in contrast, is protected from open examination by rules of confidentiality. In this way it also diverges from true peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sham_peer_review
 

lyner

  • Guest
Science Journals
« Reply #8 on: 23/10/2007 11:25:25 »
Quote
grrrr @ peer reviews
Well, Dr B. If we had to have them before our words  were accepted for posting things here, there would be a lot less to read!
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Science Journals
« Reply #9 on: 31/10/2007 22:06:04 »
Thatís a good Point Sophie, but I suspect Doc Beaver has had some experience of his own with the old peer review system. I am happy that it is under review and that now we can at least suggest our own peer reviewers.

But I suspect being a peer reviewer is taxing also and definitely time consuming, so I guess they can also become blasť after reviewing a number of papers many of which will certainly not win them any friends.


 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Science Journals
« Reply #9 on: 31/10/2007 22:06:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums