Annotated Bibliography: Paper #2

Transcription

1 Annotated Bibliography: Paper #2 Contributors: Rachel Osaer, Rachel Osaer, Kaitlen Cole, Joshua M Wilson, Kelsey Mourtos, Alex Johnson, Nicolette Ivezaj, Carli Bock, Allicia Scharnhorst, Alex Johnson (2), Calvin Stafford, Kayla Sudlow, Martin Manuel, Jacob Blanchard, Will Fagan, Travis Osterland, Rachel Osaer Hugh Culik English /26/10 Annotated Bibliography Glick, Michael. Scientific Fraud Real Consequences. J Am Dent Assoc., AL: Journal of American Dental Association, Web. Summary: The article written by Michael Glick thoroughly covers fabrications of articles that have been posted in what are considered reliable journals and/or magazines. Science Magazine had an issue of fraudulent material that was published from a Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. Dr. Suk claimed that he had found ways of cloning using stem cell. The publisher had to immediately remove the articles. Given this high of an error for such a well known magazine, one begins to wonder how the peer editors did not find these fabrications in the article. Glick mentions that the peer review process seldom discovers scientific misconduct. It may look bad for Dr. Suk, but all the editors and even the publisher will suffer from the known topic that they allowed fraudulent material get published. Not only would it be the authors fault, but the editors as well. Assesss: Science Magazine is responsible for publishing reliable and credible material. Allowing this fabricated article to be published now diminishes its credibility, but also its dignity. Although it could be easy to blame all of the editors, there needs to be qualified scientists going over the material. Dr. Suk was able to slip past all the editors and publishers and made a mockery of himself and the magazine. Reflect: It seems strange to me that the well-known Science Magazine had an article that had fraudulent information be published. How close are the peers to these subjects and fields, and are they even qualified to edit these articles? Perhaps open peer review would be a more logical sense of going about editing an article like this. It would allow access to all sorts of researchers and authors in the same fields to make their own judgments to better the editing process.

2 Rachel Osaer Hugh Culik English /21/10 Annotated Bibliography Smith, Richard. Peer Review: Reform or Revolution? Time to Open Up the Black Box of Peer Review. BMJ: British Medical Journal. Vol. No stable/ Sept Summary: Author Richard Smith, who wrote an article for the British Medical Journal stated talks about how the use peer review will probably never fade. Although there are apparent flaws in peer review, including that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud, says Smith. The article continues to discuss how the use of peer review has now gone viral, and some articles may even be reviewed online using open peer review. This new idea of editing articles and pre-published works tries to make the process more accessible for new research criteria. Smith furthers out the article with stating how Dr. Rennie proposed a new future for publishing paper, however it seems now that everything is becoming computer-based, along with peer review itself. Assess: Open peer review, although just as reliable as peer review alone, can be more useful in peer review, in the sense of acquiring new research information, and even getting a wider variety of reviews to an unpublished paper or article. Smith s article also stated that having the access of open peer review not only is beneficial for the authors who post the work, but for the readers as well. However, I still see the negative to open peer review, too, which would be that writing bad reviews and comments would be far too common. Also, at the end of the article, Smith mentions the idea that standard peer review will merely become an ancient writing technique in the future, which I find to be quite true. Reflect: Although the article covers both peer review and open peer review, I still clearly see the flaws of both and question the reliability of these writing methods. None of these forms of editing have proven effects on whether they work or not. However, I do think that open peer review may be a good attribute to many people who are trying to publish articles and things along those lines, and that open peer review may be the new modern method.

3 Kaitlen Cole Prof. Hugh Culik Eng c1604 9/21/10 Chubin, Daryl E., ed. Review: They Blinded Us With 'Science'. 4th ed. Vol. 8. New York City: Sage Publications Inc., JSTOR. Web. 21 Sept < Summary: The article is a review of another book called Betrayal of The Truth written by two predecessors from Science Magazine. The author of the article describes the book and the authors of the book views of peer review and fraud, along with the science discourse. One of the main points was that fraud will be dismissed by the change of conventional ideology instead of peer review. Assess The source is complicated to understand for it is all over the map; however, we get to see how workers from Science Magazine views towards a sensitive topic. The article is useful for I see that they believe that fraud and peer review are linked; however, are not exactly the right problem solvers for each other. It gets into detail that, even with the peer review process the way it is, there is always going to be fraud unless we change the ideology of science; which is an interesting way to look at fraud and the problem it has with peer review. Reflect The article can be useful for I get to see how workers felt about the system then, in What I would like to know now is what are they thinking about the current system. Do they still believe that by changing ideology that it will fix fraud, instead of paying more attention to peer review? I believe that these questions and information from the article will help guide me into writing my paper. Joshua M Wilson Professor Hugh Culik ENGL1190/C1601

4 Donald Kennedy, To Publish or not to Publish Summarize: this article focuses on how some papers have a hard time getting published because of different opinions between authors and reviewers. There are Senior Science Managers (SSM) who can delay the publication of a paper for whatever reason. The authors then have a meeting to discuss the objections raised by the SSM. Usually a compromise is reached as the authors then respond to the criticism received from the SSM and they make changes in the text to accommodate them. This article talks about how it s the writers job to put interesting and important science into the public view but it also states that there s no guarantee that everything in the article is right. Assess: This source was very useful because I believe that this was the first article that really came out and said that even after peer review, there is still no guarantee that all of the information is correct. I think that the main thing that Pat Hagan wanted to point out was how some papers aren t published because of different opinions. The authors and reviewers have to meet somewhere in the middle in order for a paper to be published. Hagan believes though that publication should occur even when there is some controversy. Reflect: I think that this is a good article. It helped me to see that authors are somewhat limited in what they can say. If a reviewer disagrees with what the author is saying, then censorship can occur. After reading this article, I see that peer review isn t always fair. I can see why Pat Hagan says that controversy shouldn t keep a paper from being published. Kelsey Mourtos Scholarly Source: Scientific Communication, Philip H. Abelson, Science, New Series, Vol. 209, No. 4452, Centennial Issue (Jul. 4, 1980), pp , Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stable URL: Summarize: The article reflects on every aspect of communication that is used in the scientific discipline. It thoroughly explains how scientists have communicated with each other for hundreds of years. It also goes onto explaining the peer review process that has been used in the communication between scientists. The article states, The most important and effective mechanism for attaining good standards of quality in journals is the peer review method. The peer review method contains flaws, but some kind of review is critical to information that is published today. Assess: The source seems to completely take sides with the traditional peer review method. They express very little interest in a need to change the system. Considering the flaws within peer review, the article states, It is subject to errors and possible abuses. Such failures are often spotlighted by critics, who demand an impossible perfection without knowing how to achieve it in practice. In

5 other words, the author is agreeing that the process has flaws, but does not think there have been many good ideas on how to fix it. The goal of the article seemed to be an attempt to reassure readers that the traditional peer review method is as good as it s going to get. Reflect: I think that the traditional peer review method is outdated and leaves too much room for someone to be biased. We have the privilege of using technology that people did not have in the 1700s. Therefore, we should not keep relying on a process that was invented so long ago. There is no argument that the traditional method works and it is understood that knowledge would not exist without boundaries. However, there seems to be too many flaws in the system. The world is changing, and evolving. We need to change and evolve the way we process such valuable research. Alex Johnson Alberts, Bruce, Brooks Hanson, and Katrina Kelner. "Reviewing Peer Review." Science (2008) Summarize: The article describes the Peer Review process and how it ties along with their scientific publication. They begin to describe how sets of experts review scientific research and fix what they think is wrong or what could be added to the new information. Despite all of the success of Peer Review it attracts criticism as well. It could be biased, overtaxed, uninformed, and ask for unnecessary experiments. Then they begin to say although all this can happen, they believe that Peer Review in Science improves most papers, and most of the time, authors will thank the reviewers for doing so. Assess: The information in this source is scholarly, very useful, and reliable. This source touches on all the positive things about Science Peer Review system because it is written by the editor and chief of the magazine. It entails the possible problems within scientific research and Peer Review as well as gives a clear understanding how they can eliminate them. The closing statement summarizes their goal The scientific community must collectively ensure that the peer review process continues to serve the loftier goals of our enterprise, which ultimately benefits us all. Reflect: This source has given me a huge understanding on how this magazine can help and detect error in the peer review process. It also describes that their reviewers work hard to make sure that the new information gets is reviewed properly and fixed as they would want it published. The thing that I found most interesting of Science magazine s peer review process is that they describe that most importantly, the authors, reviewers, and journal editors should keep in mind the ultimate goal of a scholarly scientific publishing is to enhance our understanding of the natural world. This fits into my research well and could benefit me on my paper.

6 Nicolette Ivezaj Hugh Culik 09/22/2010 Annotated Bibliography Kennedy, Donald. "To Publish or Not to Publish." Web. 23 Sept &Search=yes&term=Donald&term=publish&term=kennedy&list=hide&searchUri=/action/ dobasicsearch?query=donald+kennedy+to+publish+or+not+to +publish&gw=jtx&acc=on&prq=donald +kennedy&hp=25&wc=on&item=3&ttl=233548&returnarticleservice=showfulltext Summary: Every once and awhile at Science we receive a paper that causes to exercise particular care in handling, because it may be too controversial or because it is important- or both. Donald Kennedy sums up the difficult process of publishing an article in Science magazine. After going through an external review process the publication process still is not over. Senior Science Managers urge that they delay the process of publishing an article and complete their goal by sending numerous s and phone calls. Not only is the publication process difficult, but other scientist can object to publishing the manuscript. A case used in the article discusses how a paper written by Taleyarkhan was objected by two other scientist both urging that Science re-evaluate the manuscript and rethink the thought of publishing it. Donald discusses even after the time consuming publication process they cannot be sure that every article contains correct information, but what Science does know that publication is the right option. Assess: This source provides useful information on the Science magazine publication process. It discusses obstacles that authors must go through in order to publish a paper and the difficulties that both the author and science magazine must face. Also, delaying a paper of publication is very easy and uncontrollable. The author notes the flaws that peer review contains, but in the end publication is the right way to go even if it is time consuming, and unfair for the author. Reflect: I believe this article is useful, in that it discusses the problems Science magazine must cope with in order to publish an article. Kennedy showed that authors and editors themselves have limits with the publication process. With the case provided in the article I was shocked to see that other scientist interfere with another scientists work by objecting his/her manuscript. Also, that even with peer review and other opinions they cannot guarantee that every manuscript published is correct, but the publication process and peer review is still needed.

7 Carli Bock Prof. Hugh Culik September 21, 2010 Annotated Bibliography: Scholarly Editorial: To Publish or Not to Publish Author(s): Donald Kennedy Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 295, No (Mar. 8, 2002), p. 1793Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: Summarize: In this article, Donald Kennedy discusses the complicated process through which manuscripts grow through before being published in the magazine, Science. One paper in particular needed to be treated with care, after the normal review process had been completed and the paper had been scheduled for publication. Several s had been sent, phone calls were made, meetings were held and more scientists were brought into the chaotic mess to analyze the paper and give their opinions on whether it should be published or not. Kennedy states that even though the scientific review process is very time consuming and people may think they never come across problems, they always have to be prepared for difficulties and setbacks when it comes to publishing. Assess: This article gives useful information about the troubles that Science magazine goes through while publishing an article, and how they may handle them. Donald shows how many different outside sources get involved when a problem comes across before the publishing of a paper. The review process isn t always easy and they sometimes come across controversy, but they are prepared for these certain issues and this is a good thing for readers to know about the system. Kennedy makes a good point by saying that even though the process before publication is time consuming, it s crucial and publication must be done in the end. Reflect: I think this article is very useful when learning about the review process, because it discusses the way Science Magazine handles serious issues brought up before publication. It gives me insight on the way editors handle problems quickly and how they are always prepared for occasional problems to pop up. After reading this article, I m surprised to see how much time and effort is accommodated when one error is brought up. All of this goes to show that the peer review process really does have flaws, and that the process is crucially needed. Allicia Scharnhorst Hugh Culik: Instructor ENGL 1190-C1601 September 24, 2010 Annotated Bibliography Rossner, Mike. Hwang Case Review Committee Misses the Mark. N.p.: The Journal of Cell Biology, JSTOR. Web. 24 Sept stable/ ?&search=yes&term=suk&term=%22peer+review

8 %22&term=Woo&term=Hwang&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch %3FQuery%3D%2522peer%2Breview%2522 Summarize: As a result of the fraudulent Hwang Woo-Suk articles published in Science Magazine, the peer review process was renovated by a committee at the journal. However, the committee had started off by making selective decisions regarding the fix. For instance, an idea that was brought to the table was to get Science and Nature as well as a few other high profile journals together to establish common standards for ensuring data integrity. Rossner, being a part of the Journal of Cell Biology (JCB), states his reaction to some of the ideas the committee come up with in this article. Assess: The committee that had taken on the responsibility of revising the review process at Science Magazine had thrown around many ideas in hopes that one or more would save the journal s credibility. Thoughts of creating common standards of peer review for a few selected journals as well as being able to enforce them was one that was already common among other journals. According to Rossner, JCB uses image screening as a form of review. Image screening helps with data integrity in images to detect for manipulation, which was a problem in the Hwang Woo-Suk case. Ironically enough, Science is one of the select few journals outside of The Rockefeller University Press that utilizes image screening, yet the image manipulation picked up by JCB s image screener was not picked up by the image screener at Science. Reflect: The Hwang case caused many to question the credibility of the content published within Science Magazine. Worse yet, an image manipulation not picked up by Science was picked up by another well credited journal. What does this say about the review process at Science? Is more to be considered other than just the reviewing of content in manuscripts? Should the credibility that lies with the image screener at Science be questioned as well? Alex Johnson Alberts, Bruce, Brooks Hanson, and Katrina Kelner. "Reviewing Peer Review." Science (2008) Summarize: The article describes the Peer Review process and how it ties along with their scientific publication. They begin to describe how sets of experts review scientific research and fix what they think is wrong or what could be added to the new information. Despite all of the success of Peer Review it attracts criticism as well. It could be biased, overtaxed, uninformed, and ask for unnecessary experiments. Then they begin to say although all this can happen, they believe that Peer Review in Science improves most papers, and most of the time, authors will thank the reviewers for doing so. Assess: The information in this source is scholarly, very useful, and reliable. This source touches on all the positive things about Science Peer Review system because it is written by the editor and chief of the magazine. It entails the possible problems within scientific research and Peer Review as well as gives a clear understanding how they can eliminate them. The closing statement summarizes their goal The scientific community must collectively ensure that the peer review process continues to serve the loftier goals of our enterprise, which ultimately benefits us all. Reflect: This source has given me a huge understanding on how this magazine can help and detect error in the peer review process. It also describes that their reviewers work hard to make sure that the new information gets is reviewed properly and fixed as they would want it

9 published. The thing that I found most interesting of Science magazine s peer review process is that they describe that most importantly, the authors, reviewers, and journal editors should keep in mind the ultimate goal of a scholarly scientific publishing is to enhance our understanding of the natural world. This fits into my research well and could benefit me on my paper. Martin Manuel Hugh Culik ENGL-1190-C Annotated bibliography Mike Rossner. Hwang case review committee misses the mark. The journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 176, No. 2, January 15, Summary: The article is discussing the peer review process and its consequences. The article pointed out that editors should do something to ensure data integrity. Also, the article mentioned the work of the external committee convened by Science to investigate the stem cell fraud case. It added that the committee has made a good step through insisting on editors to ensure data integrity in which led to considering a special scrutiny for manuscript that have bad effects on the reputation of Science and science. Moreover, that step has resulted in shifting of the public s dialogue from ensuring data integrity to defining a risky paper; which is waste of time because standards of data integrity should be applied uniformly to every published paper. Further, the article mentioned that committee recommended a consensus by Science, Nature, and a few high-profile journals to establish common standards for ensuring data integrity and enforcing it. It added that journals perpetrates fraud when considering their publications met to the standards Furthermore, the article pointed out that image data can be easily examined for evidences of manipulation. It added that standards of types of data other than image data should be developed and enforced. Also, the article mentions a study commissioned by the National Academy of science to develop universal standards. The article considered it vital to engage journal editors and scientific community to participate in this study. Finally, the article pointed out that it is unacceptable for editors to hide behind the veil of peer review. It also pointed out that it is unapproved of article editors to argue that fraud will be identified when others can t repeat fabricated results. Assess:

10 The article brings out very important issue which is data integrity though peer review. But it is important to ensure that data integrity isn t applied only for manuscripts that have bad effects on journal s reputation. The same standards should be applied to any article when trying to ensure data integrity. Further, the article pointed out that Science, Nature, and a few high-profile journals should consider and agree on the same standards in which will provide better bases to ensure data integrity. Moreover, it is essential to engage journal editors and scientific community in conversations in order to develop universal standards. Further, it is time for editors to stop hiding behind the veil of peer review; and to change the argument that fraud will be discovered by the audience. Reflect: Data integrity is what peer review all about. It is the editors responsibility to ensure this integrity in order to protect journal s reputation and the audience form frauds. Also, the standards of data integrity should be applied to every manuscript not just the manuscripts that have problems in it. Moreover, scientific journals and journal of high profile should agree on specific standards in order to ensure integrity. These standards can be developed by the engagement of journal editors and the scientific community in the data integrity argument. Calvin Stafford Hugh Culik ENGL 1190-C1604 September 22, 2010 Jim Schanabel Science, technology, & Human Values Vol. 19, No.4(Autumn, 1994)pp Scholar of Peer Review in Science(Annotated Bibliography) Summary: The author deeply examines how hoaxed material surpasses threw peer reviewers of the scientific community. The author also states that hoaxed information is usually camouflaged by copying the researchers methods. Mr. Schanabel is giving examples of how tricksters trick fellow researchers of the scientific community by copying the researchers and testing their knowledge in various different areas. Assess: Knowledge has a way of repeating itself. In order to discover new methods or creative

11 knowledge, we must take into account the traditional system of how knowledgeable information is gathered and displayed. Jim Schanabel also demonstrates how scientific referees focused on if the paper was well or properly written. Many referees did not recognize that the paper was flawed methodologically. Reflect: Knowledge is evaluated and pushed among the scientific community threw trust of one s peer. there is a bias in the scientific community. Members in a certain field, without a doubt look out for each other s reputation. I guess it boils down to your beliefs and character between distinguishing if information is True or not. Does one believe in actual facts or believe in, how credible someone s background is? Kayla Sudlow Professor Culik English 1190-C September 2010 Annotated Bibliography Rossner, Mike. Hwang Case Review Committee Misses the Mark. Rockefeller University Press: The Journal of Cell Biology, JSTOR. Web. 24 Sept seq=1&search=yes&term=hwang&term=woo&term=suk&list=hide&searchuri=%2faction %2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhwang%2Bwoo%2Bsuk%26wc%3Don%26acc %3Don&item=9&ttl=187&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null Summarize: Science is now making more of an effort to protect the integrity of data. Also they realized they need to take more responsibility for the information they publish. Since the two fraudulent papers on stem cell research sent by Hwang Woo Suk, Science has decided a need for change is in demand. Science is now working with Nature in order to ensure the data integrity. Science has also come to conclude that their system puts too much faith in the authors, and that their data and science is all of a creditable source. Once the case oh Hwang was looked into more evidence was found that this incident could have been prevented, saving Science s reputation. Assess: Although Science has stepped up to take responsibility for not catching the fraud before the information was published doesn t mean they are not at fault for this incident. Leading technology used at The Rockefeller University Press was able to detect the image fraud used by Hwang as his evidence. This same technology is in fact used at Science, but representatives say their image scanner still wouldn t have detected the fraud. To ensure the integrity of data Science and Nature are working together to establish a common standard of

12 information. The issue that will arise is not having the standards set, it will be having all journals follow and stick with the set guidelines. Reflect: This source has done a good job to giving me more information about the Hwang case. I now worry about the peer review system at Science since they couldn t detect the fraud themselves. And the fact another leading journal that uses the same technology was able to discover the fraud that was obvious to detect. In order for something like this not to happen again at Science or another leading magazine will take strong guidelines that everyone actually follows. The Hwang Woo Suk case was a good thing, to show Science and other journals that they trust the author s creditability too much and their needs to be things changed within the peer review system. Jacob Blanchard Hugh Culik English /6/10 Annotated Bibliography Glick, Michael. Scientific Fraud Real Consequences. J Am Dent Assoc., AL: Journal of American Dental Association, Web. Summary: The article covers information about information that is published in journals. Science once had an issue of their journal of where a piece of fraudulent information where it was published and read by readers, it was about Dr. Hwang Woo Suk who said he had a way to clone animals and even people by using the stem cell. This is surprising because Science is a well know scholarly journal and even have their own peer review process to cut down on fraudulent material getting into the their published works. Assess: Science says it has it's own peer review process for this very reason, so fraudulent material won't get published. But how did this get into such a highly praised journal with so much recognition? Dr. Suk got around the editors and reviewers and damaged Science's reputation as fraudulent material was published Reflect: Odd that such a highly praised journal such as Science would even come close to allowing this to happen. Are the people reviewing the article not experience enough to do this

13 kind of work? Say you do an online version of peer review in a discussion board but prove you have creditability in the field to edit an article which would help cut down on fraud because it would open it up to more reviewers. Jeremy Kinney Chubin, Daryl E., ed. Review: They Blinded Us With 'Science'. 4th ed. Vol. 8. New York City: Sage Publications Inc., JSTOR. Web. 21 Sept < Summary: The article is a summary of another book called Betrayal of the Truth done by two former authors from Science Magazine. The author of the article summarizes the book and the author s view of peer review and fraud, along with the discourse community. One of the main points was that fraud will be dismissed by the change of conventional ideology instead of peer review. Assess Reflect The article can be useful for I get to see how workers felt about the system then, in What I would like to know now is what are they thinking about the current system. Do they still believe that by changing ideology that it will fix fraud, instead of paying more attention to peer review? I believe that these questions and information from the article will help guide me into writing my paper. William Fagan Hugh Culik professor English /5/2010

14 Chubin, Daryl E. Review: They Blinded Us with 'Science'? 4thth ed. Vol. 8. N.p.: Sage Publications, Inc., Web. 5 Oct < > Summary: The article is a review of Betrayers of the Truth by William Broad and Nicholas wade, both who were journalists of science magazine. The article talks about how other outside influence can affect peer review such as a celebrity system. Where the best of the best will have a position in the scientific hierarchy. It also talks about how the useless and incorrect research gets kicked out over the course of time. Access: The information in the article is confusing, but it can be useful in a way. The article is useful because it talks about how outside influences can affect peer review. So if you are writing a article about outside influences it would be good. It also talks about how there will always be fraud, and there always will be fraud. Though if we changed the ideology of science there may be less fraud. Reflect: This article is useful because it shows me how the connections to peer review under the skin work. It also talks about how outside influences can change peer review, like how more renound scientists have an easier time getting published. Also this makes me think if a renowned scientist submits an article that could be fraudulent through a accelerated peer review process. How it may get published because they have done good work in the past. Travis Osterland Professor Culik ENGL 1180-C1601 September 22, 2010 Annotated Bibliography Rossner, Mike. "Editorial: Hwang Case Review Committee Misses the Mark." The Rockfeller University Press, 15 Jan Jstor. Web. 22 Sept < +review%22&term=woo&term=suk&list=hide&searchuri=%2faction

15 %2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3D%2522peer%2Breview%2522%26f0%3Dall %26c1%3DA>. Summary Author Mike Rossner states journal editors should do something beyond normal peer review for papers that if published and contain incorrect information could make them look bad. This whole idea comes about due to the fact of the stem cell research Hwang Woo Suk got published even though the information was incorrect. After these two articles got published and hurt Science Magazines reputation editors were asked to take extra steps to ensure nothing like this happens again. Another suggestion is that high profile magazines such as Science and Nature should team up and work together as a way to make sure articles that contain false information don t get published. Access In my opinion Science is a scholarly source and should have been more careful the first time when looking at Hwang Woo Suk s research. They claim they did take extra steps when reviewing his work and he still got published, how could this be? I think it would be a good idea if Science and Nature teamed up for review purposes, that could be a very good step towards making sure this kind of action never occurs again..