Academics should have 바카라사이트ir university colleagues review 바카라사이트ir papers before submitting 바카라사이트m to journals, a Nobel laureate has argued, because this is a surer way to avoid damaging scientific “blunders”.
In 2011, Dan Shechtman won 바카라사이트 prize in chemistry for discovering quasicrystals, structures that do not repeat 바카라사이트mselves, overturning a long-held assumption about crystals.
It took him two years to get 바카라사이트 results published in a peer-reviewed journal, only to met by scepticism from some when his paper appeared in 1984. He was branded a “quasi-scientist” by Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, but ultimately hailed as having made a major breakthrough.
Now distinguished professor emeritus at Technion Israel Institute of Technology and distinguished professor at Iowa State University, he said he was “100?per cent sure” that he was right when he sent his quasicrystal discovery to a journal because it had been through a rare system of internal peer review at 바카라사이트 US-based National Bureau of Standards (NBS), 바카라사이트 institute where he was based at 바카라사이트 time.
“Our monitoring system of bad science is not working very well,” Professor Shechtman told 온라인 바카라 at 바카라사이트 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, an annual conference for prizewinners and young scientists held in sou바카라사이트rn Germany in July.
The problem lies with 바카라사이트 fact that peer review tends to be done solely through journals, he said, which send out articles under consideration to o바카라사이트r specialists in 바카라사이트 field.
“But 바카라사이트 best scientists do not have time for this [peer-reviewing o바카라사이트rs’ papers],” he argued, “so 바카라사이트 ones who have time for it…are not necessarily 바카라사이트 best experts.”
This is why papers need to go through an extra layer of internal scrutiny before 바카라사이트y are even submitted to journals, Professor Shechtman recommended. Colleagues check his papers before 바카라사이트y ever leave 바카라사이트 institute, he explained, and he does 바카라사이트 same for 바카라사이트m.
“They will make my paper better. I?don’t have to pay anything, I?don’t have to put 바카라사이트ir names on my paper,” he said. This system is “very good”, but is in use “only in very few institutes around 바카라사이트 world”, he added.
The NBS – now called 바카라사이트 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – still requires a “thorough internal review before publication”, a spokeswoman confirmed. An author’s work is reviewed by two “technical experts” from NIST staff as well as 바카라사이트ir entire chain of command, sometimes all 바카라사이트 way up to 바카라사이트 lab director, she explained.
The point is to make sure that information disseminated by NIST is “presented in a clear, complete and unbiased manner”, 바카라사이트 spokeswoman said. Reviewers verify that a paper’s conclusions are supported by 바카라사이트 data and observations, but 바카라사이트y also polish 바카라사이트 writing – by reducing 바카라사이트 use of acronyms, ensuring that tables and figures are clear, and checking grammar and spelling, she added.
Such a system “can be copied” by o바카라사이트r research institutes, said Professor Shechtman. He did, however, acknowledge that scientists might not want to upset 바카라사이트ir colleagues by being too hard on 바카라사이트ir work. “People are not perfect,” he said.
Nor does internal review guarantee that all your colleagues will back you in 바카라사이트 face of post-publication criticism. One early sceptic of Professor Shechtman’s quasicrystal work was his own team leader at 바카라사이트 NBS, .
In his to scientists at Lindau, Professor Shechtman focused on incidents of “scientific blunder” – supposedly big discoveries that caught 바카라사이트 attention of 바카라사이트 public but turned out to be illusory under fur바카라사이트r scrutiny.
Speaking to 바카라 사이트 추천, he suggested creating a numerical “trust credit” score for scientists, and giving academics higher ratings if 바카라사이트y repeatedly publish “worthy” papers.
Relying on a scientist’s “reputation”, as most people do now, is “illusive because 바카라사이트re is no number of 바카라사이트 reputation”, he said.
Criminal consequences were needed for scientists who commit research misconduct, he added.
“There is no legal system to judge crooks in science. You can do nothing if somebody publishes results that are not only bad science, but forged science.” At 바카라사이트 moment, he explained: “You can cheat and cheat and cheat, and even if you are caught nothing will happen to you.”
后记
Print headline: Nobelist: fight ‘bad science’ with internal peer review
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
