This is because, in each module that you study, you are expected to do a research to prompt your thinking and reasoning. It is therefore important to have the required skills as you draft your paper for proper understanding to the readers.
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. 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? 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. He created a deeply flawed paper about molecules from lichens that inhibit the growth of cancer cells, submitted it to open access journals under assumed names, and recorded what happened.
Of the journals that rendered decisions, accepted the paper, most with no discernible sign of having actually carried out peer review. Here is their press release: His hoax paper claimed that a particular molecule slowed the growth of cancer cells, and it was riddled with obvious errors and contradictions.
And, according to Bohannon, 16 of those journals eventually accepted the spoof paper despite their negative reviews.
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 no doing it.
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.
And one look at many of their journals shows that they also will accept almost anything. 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.
While some fringe OA publishers are playing a short con, subscription publishers are seasoned grifters playing a long con.
Like all good grifters playing the long con, they get us to believe they are doing something good for us — something we need.
Not only do they traffic in billions rather than thousands of dollars and denying 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. And it often distorts public policy. There are deep problems with science publishing. But the way to fix this is not to curtain 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 represents 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 its 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.
This entry was posted in open accessscience. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.Step 2: Write the Methods. This section responds to the question of how the problem was studied. If your paper is proposing a new method, you need to include detailed information so a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment.
Don’t worry. This blog post contains 25 interesting research paper topics to some of these topics to see if they a political science.
The rise of contact and commerce between many human-colonized worlds or many worlds of alien intelligences that have come to trust and do business with one another. Learn to write science fiction and fantasy from a master. You've always dreamed of writing science fiction and fantasy tales that pull readers into extraordinary new worlds and fantastic conflicts.
Oct 03, · Oh there are many science topics out there which really need good writers but let me enumerate the ones which are in now - 1. Sustainable Environment 2. Renewable Energy 3. About Love My Science. Love My Science is full of fun, easy, safe and exciting hands-on science experiments as well as fun facts and Science topics that will help you answer a .