Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Academic Freedom and Anonymous Peer Review
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 18 (745312)
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


Academic Freedom and the Right to Remain Anonymous Online
quote:
We are the founders of PubPeer.com, an online forum for scientific discussion of research scholarship. We and many of the users of our website are anonymous. That anonymity is important for free speech, for academic freedom, and for scientific inquiry. But it’s being threatened, which is why we’re going to court to defend the First Amendment right to anonymity.
Have you ever questioned the claims that scientists make? For example, last year’s discovery of the so-called God particle, or the back-and-forth over whether caffeine is good or bad for you? Even if you haven’t, other scientists have. Analysis and criticism of the work of others is an integral part of research. The papers that scientists publish all undergo formal peer review before they are published, with the aim of ensuring high standards.
The problem is that today’s peer review is a broken process. Too often, errors slip through, and they can go uncorrected for years. Even if they are eventually exposed, that’s often long after other researchers or clinical trials have relied upon them.
This not only wastes taxpayers’ money (consider the fact that the National Institute of Health gave out $30 billion in research funding last year), but it rots the very foundation of scientific research, which builds on existing work. If today’s basic cancer research turns out to be mistaken, what does that mean for those enrolled in tomorrow’s clinical trial? This is not a hypothetical problem.
The question is whether the peer review should be anonymous or not.
Thoughts?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 12-21-2014 10:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 12-22-2014 11:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-22-2014 12:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 12-22-2014 2:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 18 (745313)
12-21-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


The question is whether the peer review should be anonymous or not.
If it is anonymous then the issue is the validity of the science not the person making the review -- isn't that what science is about?
Note you must sign up to participate and you must have credentials to sign up, so it isn't just people off the street making comments.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 18 (745324)
12-21-2014 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


The question is whether the peer review should be anonymous or not.
Thoughts?
Who cares?
Judge the science on its own merits.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 18 (745327)
12-21-2014 11:34 PM


I've been on both sides of peer review.
I think the issue is different among the different fields of science. Some, such as cancer research mentioned above, are critical. Others, such as sociology, matter hardly at all.
Anonymous reviews let reviewers say what they really think, but they also shield shills who might have a vested interest, or an axe to grind.
Also, an editor can send an article to any of a number of reviewers and by careful selection can probably get the results he is looking for.
The open review is a good idea, as that lets a larger number of reviewers get their say. But that's essentially what the publishing part of science does anyway.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taq, posted 12-24-2014 12:46 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 5 of 18 (745389)
12-22-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


RAZD writes:
The question is whether the peer review should be anonymous or not.
I think that official things going into the official book of knowledge (does something that like even exist?) should not be anonymous.
Responsibility should be visible for peer reviewers and entry-makers alike.
But it’s being threatened, which is why we’re going to court to defend the First Amendment right to anonymity.
How is it being threatened?
The problem is that today’s peer review is a broken process. Too often, errors slip through, and they can go uncorrected for years. Even if they are eventually exposed, that’s often long after other researchers or clinical trials have relied upon them.
Okay.
I don't see how anonymous peer review helps this issue.
...errors slip through...
That's just the nature of humans.
Would anonymous peer review prevent human nature? Would it be 100% error free?
I think that "errors would still slip through" with anonymous peer review.
...they can go uncorrected for years...
How does anonymous peer review prevent this?
When anonymous peer reviews are done, there will be x% for the paper, y% against and z% undecided... So then what? Popular vote? That's not how things are done in science.
How does anonymous peer review help us understand which review is "correct"?
It seems to me, it would still have the possibility to "go uncorrected for years."
Sounds to me like someone is just offering up an alternative system for the sake of offering up an alternative.
I don't see any advantage to switching over to "anonymous review" that doesn't bring along it's own disadvantage.
If there's no balance towards an advantage for switching over... why should the entire system switch?
That sounds like a "waste of taxpayers' money" to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 6 of 18 (745391)
12-22-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


RAZD writes:
... we’re going to court to defend the First Amendment right to anonymity.
*alarm bells* The First Amendment is an American institution. Science is not.
Even if it is necessary sometimes to protect people from persecution for their political opinions, it should not be necessary. Personally, I stand by my vote; I will tell anybody whom I vote for and why.
The same ought to apply in science. If you have criticism of a scientific paper, you ought to stand by your criticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 2:50 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 18 (745396)
12-22-2014 12:34 PM


The First Amendment has nothing to do with anonymity ...
and I would think the very last thing we need is anonymity when it comes to the peer review process; rather I think the maximum amount of transparency would be needed. It is essential to know if the reviewers have a financial interest in supporting or opposing publication.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 18 (745404)
12-22-2014 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-21-2014 7:47 PM


Wait, Wait!
I thought peer review was anonymous.
As I understood most journals the authors are asked to provide 2,3,4 names of people in the field who would understand the paper and be able to give effective review. The editors then choose 2,3,4 reviewers from their own list which may or may not include those recommended by the authors, reviewers of like expertise in the field. The reviewer's recommendations/criticisms are sent to the authors, but the reviewer's identity is not revealed.
The authors can then change their submission in line with the reviewers comments or pen an explanation of why they did what they did back to the reviewers and the process starts again. This back and forth, through the editors, continues until the reviewers give a final recommendation to the editor or the author's retract the paper.
In all this the authors are (as I thought I remembered) unaware of who the reviewers are.
Has this changed?
[abe]
From Wiki:
quote:
Starting in the 1990s, several scientific journals (including the high impact journal Nature in 2006) started experiments with hybrid peer review processes, often allowing the open peer reviews in parallel to the traditional model. The initial evidence of the effect of open peer review upon the quality of reviews, the tone and the time spent on reviewing was mixed, although under open peer review, more of those who are invited to review decline to do so.
So what's the big deal with this PubPeer? If this (so called) author wants to sue them for anonymous reviewers he will likely have to sue the major journals as well. Who is this fool?
[/abe]
Edited by AZPaul3, : more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2014 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 18 (745405)
12-22-2014 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-22-2014 12:08 PM


Even if it is necessary sometimes to protect people from persecution for their political opinions, it should not be necessary. Personally, I stand by my vote; I will tell anybody whom I vote for and why.
You certainly have the right to give out your name. I will note that the majority of the people here don't give out their names regardless of how strongly the hold onto their opinions.
In any event, the issue is not whether peer review in general ought to be changed, but whether a court can force an anonymous review site to give up names because someone has gotten bad reviews that they claim are defamatory. In my opinion, the ACLU overstates and distorts the issues regarding the problems with peer review. But I think they are dead on regarding the issues regarding anonymity. And of course they are talking about a court case in the United States.
As a person who considers the First Amendment as of nearly primary importance, I value anonymity.
quote:
Unfortunately, the anonymity that makes PubPeer work is under threat. A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation. And he is trying to use a subpoena to force PubPeer to turn over whatever identifying information we have for them.
I'd want to see the comments before I picked a side here.
If you have criticism of a scientific paper, you ought to stand by your criticism.
That's one principle. Another is that you also ought not be subject to a Slapp suit to keep you quiet simply because you have something truthful to say.
In an ideal world, speech would battle more speech. But in the world we live in, sometimes free speech without anonymity is essentially impossible.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-22-2014 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 12-23-2014 8:55 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-23-2014 10:50 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 12-24-2014 12:10 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 10 of 18 (745466)
12-23-2014 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
12-22-2014 2:50 PM


NoNukes writes:
In an ideal world, speech would battle more speech. But in the world we live in, sometimes free speech without anonymity is essentially impossible.
I agree with this point.
But is this an actual issue that's actually going on during the peer review process?
So much so that changing the system would be the reasonable thing to do?
Granted, I didn't follow RAZD's link...
But his text-extraction seems to glaze over some hypothetical non-specific problems like "erros slipping through" and things possibly "not being corrected for years."
If these are the only issues, I don't see how anonymous peer review would help...
If there are other, more pertinent issues (like the one you've raised), is there any evidence of their existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 2:50 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 18 (745479)
12-23-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
12-22-2014 2:50 PM


NoNukes writes:
I will note that the majority of the people here don't give out their names regardless of how strongly the hold onto their opinions.
That's a different issue. What we say here has a bigger (potential) audience than Oprah. If I wasn't anonymous here, any loonie out there could come knocking on my door. (In fact, I have met two people on two different forums whom I deduce live very close to me.)
What I am saying is that I will stand by my views to your face, or anybody else's. If you want to sneak around behind my back, I can't stop you.
NoNukes writes:
In any event, the issue is not whether peer review in general ought to be changed, but whether a court can force an anonymous review site to give up names because someone has gotten bad reviews that they claim are defamatory.
That's the specific example given but the topic seems to be about the broader principle of openness in peer review.
NoNukes writes:
In an ideal world, speech would battle more speech. But in the world we live in, sometimes free speech without anonymity is essentially impossible.
The only way to move toward an ideal world is to take a step forward, even if it means taking a risk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 2:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2014 7:48 PM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 18 (745525)
12-23-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
12-23-2014 10:50 AM


That's a different issue. What we say here has a bigger (potential) audience than Oprah.
Really? When you say 'potential', do you mean that more people read an issue of 'Nature' or read this newsgroup than watch any random Oprah show? Or ever will? I think not.
And so what? People here discuss all kinds of issues and give their opinions about all kinds of stuff. And that's exactly what's going on with the web site in question. I have offered my opinion here about 'technology' I feel does not work or is fradulently presented. But I'm not prepared to take on a law suit to defend myself if the inventor does not like it. And I don't think that is the standard that I or the host of this site ought to be held to when posting here.
Well the ACLU's law suit is allegedly about people doing thing similar on another web site.
What I am saying is that I will stand by my views to your face, or anybody else's.
You certainly aren't doing that here. But more to the point, if you were liable of being sued for your opinions, I suspect that you'd be more circumspect about what you say.
In any event, the issue with openness on PubPeer.com is not just about being man or woman enough to backup what you say, but also being put to the expense and occupation of your time defending a law suit about what you say.
In some countries, the law is so goofy that even the truth is not an absolute defense to a defamation suit. At least that's not the case in the US, but it's also the case that in , the US, law suit winners generally pay their own costs.
The only way to move toward an ideal world is to take a step forward, even if it means taking a risk.
Sure Ringo. Why don't you start that movement right here?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-23-2014 10:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 12-24-2014 10:54 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 13 of 18 (745559)
12-24-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
12-23-2014 7:48 PM


NoNukes writes:
But more to the point, if you were liable of being sued for your opinions, I suspect that you'd be more circumspect about what you say.
I'm always circumspect about what I say. I don't fear lawsuits for anything I've said either openly or anonymously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2014 7:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 14 of 18 (745575)
12-24-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NoNukes
12-22-2014 2:50 PM


quote:
Unfortunately, the anonymity that makes PubPeer work is under threat. A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation. And he is trying to use a subpoena to force PubPeer to turn over whatever identifying information we have for them.
The problem here is not anything to do with anonymity but the idea that criticising scientific ideas is defamation or that it is in anyway appropriate for a scientist to pursue such avenues to protect their work. The cancer scientist in question should be disciplined by his institute for bringing science them, and science, into disrepute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2014 2:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 12-24-2014 4:30 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 15 of 18 (745578)
12-24-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
12-21-2014 11:34 PM


I've been on both sides of peer review.
I think the issue is different among the different fields of science. Some, such as cancer research mentioned above, are critical. Others, such as sociology, matter hardly at all.
Anonymous reviews let reviewers say what they really think, but they also shield shills who might have a vested interest, or an axe to grind.
Also, an editor can send an article to any of a number of reviewers and by careful selection can probably get the results he is looking for.
The open review is a good idea, as that lets a larger number of reviewers get their say. But that's essentially what the publishing part of science does anyway.
What Coyote describes is the process for most of the basic science research in the field of biology.
What you need is good editors. They are the linch pin of the entire process. Reviewers are there to help the editor, to find mistakes that the editor may not necessarily be able to catch. Also, reviewers will have the specialized knowledge of the important and current findings within that narrow field of research.
In the end, it is the editor that makes the decision to publish a paper or not. The strength of any journal is based on how well the editors do their job. It is the job of an editor to find the best reviewers that will give the most honest reviews. That means finding reviewers who have limited conflicts of interest and can look past disagreements in order to see the quality of the science itself.
As of now, anonymity increases the quality of reviews. The system is working well where the reviewers are accountable to the editor. In the end, if reviewers try to take out the competition for grants by blocking publications, then their publications will be blocked as well. The editor plays the role of the referee so that there is fair play.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2014 11:34 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024