Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« AstraZeneca Buys Ardea. And Who Else? | Main | Merck Serono Cuts Back »

April 24, 2012

That's Some Fine Editorial Work There

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since I've mentioned the scientific publication business today, I thought I'd include this story from Retraction Watch as an example of what you're paying for when you pay Elsevier for quality control. When's the last time you saw a paper withdrawn because it "contains no scientific content"? Or noticed that the lead author's email contract address was at the domain "budweiser.com"?

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature


COMMENTS

1. RM on April 24, 2012 11:26 AM writes...

The @budweiser.com email address isn't really an issue in and of itself. After all, "Student" of Student's t-test fame was actually employed by the Guinness brewery, and was published under a pseudonym simply to keep Guinness's use of statistics a trade secret. I wouldn't discount a paper just because the lead author works for a beer company. (Though being @budweiser.com rather than the more likely @anheuser-busch.com might raise a few eyebrows.)

The total lack of content and nonsensical phrasing, however, is sufficient reason to discount the paper.

Permalink to Comment

2. BCP on April 24, 2012 1:04 PM writes...

That reads like one of those computer generated research papers that effectively spews up pages of cliches and buzzwords without requiring any actual content.

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

Permalink to Comment

3. Haha on April 24, 2012 2:54 PM writes...

This is a problematic problem.

Permalink to Comment

4. dvizard on April 24, 2012 3:22 PM writes...

Are you going to write anything about the Merck Serono cuts?

Permalink to Comment

5. Will on April 24, 2012 4:41 PM writes...

"contains no scientific conduct" is an apt description of many a group meeting i sat through

Permalink to Comment

6. John on April 24, 2012 8:29 PM writes...

The quality control for review is only as good as the reviewers and editors. So isn't the onus on us as scientist rather than the publisher? It seems to me this could have occurred just as easily with an open access journal.

Permalink to Comment

7. Spiny Norman on April 24, 2012 10:10 PM writes...

A priori, having a brewery for an address does not preclude making an important contribution to mathematics.

Permalink to Comment

8. Kalimuthu on April 25, 2012 6:43 AM writes...

This is a most important paper, how can you dare to make fun of it? Search google and you will find many more originating from the collaboration with my good friend Sivasubramanian! I highly recommend to you our groundbreaking work on Einstein's variance of mass with velocity equation, published in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research, 2009.

Permalink to Comment

9. Tom on April 25, 2012 7:30 AM writes...

http://meowdip.heterodoxy.cc/?p=89
Another nice story about an Elsevier journal. Paper submitted Friday, accepted without qualifications Monday.

Permalink to Comment

10. Rock on April 25, 2012 10:42 AM writes...

I propose two changes to the way scientific manuscripts are reviewed that should address 99% of the issues seen in recent years. 1) Change the editors from prominent (and extremely busy) professors to independent consultants who have been put out of work in this downsizing era. There are many highly qualified scientists in many of the disciplines with enough time on their hands to actually read the papers and the reviews carefully. The editor really can set the tone for quality. They should, of course, receive a few for this service 2) Go back to the old system where the editors choose the reviewers. Most journals now require you to send them a list of potential reviewers at the time of submission. "Hmmm, should I send it to this tough professor who will be very critical, or should I send it to a few of my friends?".....Which option do you think people choose? And if the editor reads both the paper and the reviews, they can judge the quality of both. These simple changes, to me, would greatly increase the quality and decrease the quantity of much of the literature.

Permalink to Comment

11. DCRogers on April 25, 2012 11:18 AM writes...

The paper is retracted, but still available for purchase at $39.95 via ScienceDirect.

Permalink to Comment

12. hn on April 25, 2012 4:16 PM writes...

Out of print, special collector's edition! Get them before they're gone forever!

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Why Not Bromine?
Fragonomics, Eh?
Amicus Fights Its Way Through in Fabry's
Did Pfizer Cut Back Some of Its Best Compounds?
Don't Optimize Your Plasma Protein Binding
Fluorinated Fingerprinting
One of Those Days
ChemDraw Days