Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad 123

Posted by timothy from the to-each-according-to-his-ability-to-pay dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, The Scientist reveals a curious and probably unique story. Two years ago, a researcher at Brown University submitted a paper to a scientific medicine journal. Then he received a note from the editor saying that his paper would not interest the journal readers. Thinking that his article was unfairly rejected before peer review, he decided to publish a two-page ad with the contents of his paper in the same journal. He even asked readers if they thought the contents interesting and received 33 positive replies. Read this summary before telling me what you think and if you've heard about a similar story."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad More

Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad

Comments Filter:
  • if this cancer 'only' effects 1 to 2 million people, why would it be of major intrest in a publication like this?

    • Re:just some thoughts.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:55AM (#12473875)
      The point was that Dow had released a paper claiming that, while an abnormal number of their workers were getting cancer, that this wasn't because of some chemical that they were exposed to in the workplace.

      The scientist "critiqued a 2003 Dow-funded paper (published) in Texas Medicine"

      In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.

      Personally, I wish that he had gotten the article peer reviewed and published in another paper before doing this.

      I wonder if he can now claim that he was "published in JOEM." Can people cite this work? Probably not, I'm thinking.

      The effects of industry on scientific communication is pretty interesting. The overproscription of Statins in the US because the FDA was effectivly bribed is just one example.

      Considering the various technology transfer acts passed by congress, more and more previously government funded is becoming the province of industry. The effects on the integrity of scientific research are only slowly becoming apparent.

      • Re:just some thoughts.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @08:53AM (#12476190) Journal
        In other words, he argued that the industry funded paper was a lie, but had a hard time getting his arguments published.

        Here's an analogy to what he did: let's say you read something in your local newspaper that you think is improperly argued. You write up your objection and ask the New York Times to run it as a bylined piece. They return it and tell you to try it as a letter to the editor in the newspaper that ran the original story.

        The guy isn't facing total suppression of his work by The Man; he's insisting on publishing it in a far more prestigious form than any reasonable person could think it warrants.

        • Actually, he is facing that suppression. The journal editor said that if he'd known it was being published as an ad, he'd have canceled it. Despite the standard ethical journalism policy of separating editors from publishers (ad managers), to prevent bias of editors by knowing who's paying the rent. It's not clear, from the tiny initial coverage in this Slashdot story, whether the editor can "fix" that "oversight" in the future, or whether that policy will continue to protect that avenue of publication.

          As
          • Actually, he is facing that suppression. The journal editor said that if he'd known it was being published as an ad, he'd have canceled it. Despite the standard ethical journalism policy of separating editors from publishers (ad managers), to prevent bias of editors by knowing who's paying the rent.

            1) I don't consider the failure to buy his way into a particular journal to be "total suppression".

            2) Perhaps you've never seen a scientific journal -- with some very rare exceptions, they have 2-4 pages of ad

            • There is a debatable issue over whether any publication can bypass its editorial filter with content paid to be run as an ad. That policy should be bidirectional: just as ads, without editorial merit, shouldn't run as stories, likewise stories shouldn't run as ads - the magazine medium doesn't allow the reader to effectively distinguish between the sponsored and scientific content well enough, especially in aggregate across many issues, stories and ads. But in this case, the story was rejected as "not inter
    • It happens to be big business because of settlement $. See here [aaronen.com], I've blogged it.
    • Well, is anyone sure that there's a problem here: either the paper was valid, and rejected by an editor for conflict of interest, in which case there is a problem, but the paper should have gone to another journal, or it's not of interest, and was correctly bounced. It seems a valid test would be to submit it to another journal, and see if they bite.

      Going the advertisement/straight to the media route is generally bad, as that is what bit Pons and Fleischman.

      A more interesting question would be why no
    • "even though mesothelioma typically strikes only 1 to 2 people per million, Egilman said" That makes 250-500, in the USA.

  • 33 replies of Interesting.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:47AM (#12473840) Journal
    Hmmmmm
    To some folk in the world, 5 hurricanes in a row in one small part of the world is considered "interesting".....

    Skipping past peer review sort of invalidates the point of being some of the journals, doesn't it?

    Hey, if you have something to say, we all want to be heard, but paid distribution of your comment may always be seen as self-promoting.

    In either case, did anyone figure out if he was right?
    • "To some folk in the world, 5 hurricanes in a row in one small part of the world is considered "interesting"....."

      Heck one hurricane is interesting where theres hardly any wind.

      "Skipping past peer review sort of invalidates the point of being some of the journals, doesn't it?"

      Apparently he was more interested in the readers' views than the peer review itself.

      "Hey, if you have something to say, we all want to be heard, but paid distribution of your comment may always be seen as self-promoting."

      Me thinks

    • Re:33 replies of Interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @01:26AM (#12473999)
      This guy wasn't rejected after peer review, though. He didn't choose to skip peer review. He was rejected because his research "wasn't interesting."

      This is what he was protesting, I think.

      If he had been rejected after peer review, it would have been a different story.

      • Re:33 replies of Interesting.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by The Fun Guy ( 21791 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @09:25AM (#12476469) Homepage Journal
        IAAS and I serve as a peer-reviewer for a number of journals. Among the criteria we are asked to judge are the significance and originality of the work. If the work isn't "interesting", i.e. if it is not very significant/important or it's not very original (confirmatory results, for example), then it gets scored lower. The journal's space is limited, and the editors would rather devote it to new, important information rather than results which don't advance the field.

        If the bulk of the readership is going to skip the article because it presents no new information or because it deals with a topic that no one cares about, then the editors are right to reject it.

        In every journal, the "Instructions to Authors" section spells out what kind of manuscript will be considered for publication... the topics appropirate for this journal, the kinds of research, etc. If your paper isn't right for this journal, publish it somewhere else.

  • Years (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by metalhed77 ( 250273 )
    I've been a member of this website for years and I just want to voice the fact that I'm pissed off at yet another Roland Piquepaille article. And yes, I'm posting this at +2, gotta use that karma for something useful.

    • Re:Years (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      It's because he's french isn't it? I can understand that.

    • Re:Years (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kalak ( 260968 )
      I don't understand the backlash in this case. If someone else is covering the story, link to it and remove the need to click to his site. Then I'd say the complaining would be fair. In this case, no one seems to have done that. That's a major difference between Groklaw and /. Here, users bitch and complain. There, you get links to the absolute source wherever possible. Got a link to the source? Please give it. I'd love to see it. Hopefully it will have more detail. If not then, maybe it's possible that Rola

      • Re:Years (Score:3, Informative)

        by metalhed77 ( 250273 )
        It's not that it's a bad story, I liked the story, unfortunately, Roland's self-serving self-linking is what puts me, and so many other slashdotter's off.

        He blatantly rips off content to get cheap hits on his site for ad revenue.

        Read this [thedarkcitadel.com] to see why.

    • Please don't visit and comment on Slashdot discussions in which you have no interest.

      I find that I am interested in only about one-twentieth of the articles on Slashdot. I was interested in this article, and was surprised to see people doing an anger trip over it.

      Three points: 1) Roland does not have much chance of making money from his Slashdot articles. (See quote below.) 2) He puts a lot of work into his articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot. 3) By complaining unreasonabl
      • "He puts a lot of work into his articles, which may be the reason they get accepted by Slashdot."

        Are you serious? Really? You honestly think that this [primidi.com] is "a lot of work"? That is incredibly sad. Virtually the entire "article" consists of blocks of direcct quotations from press releases and other primary sources. Just like every single article he's ever posted. He then embelishes with a sprinkling of phony fluff commentary ("ohh tell me what YOU think!") merely to stave of accusations of plagairism (which h

        • Yes, it is a lot of work, and so is Slashdot. How can you object to Roland, but not object to Slashdot?

          I have an interest in Roland's article, and I am commenting because I don't want to see them discouraged.

    • Re:Years (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 )
      Since the article itself was listed before the "summary" written by Piquepaille, I don't see anything wrong with it being published. It was a very interesting article, at least to me, because I'm interested in learning more about how scientific journals work.

      I did think it was odd how you were encouraged to go to the "summary", but I read the article without going there and therefore the submission did not achieve Mr Piquepaille's goals of more hits for his site.
    • Go back to anti-slash, asshat.

    • Re:Years (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Suppafly ( 179830 )
      I wonder how much money he is making off the google ads from the slashdotting we are giving him.

  • approach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phloydphreak ( 691922 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @12:59AM (#12473890) Journal
    The intersting point in the 'The Scientist' article is Egilman's (advertisment placer's) approach to a system which he considers to be corrupt. from TA: the JOEM "(has)indirect ties to Dow Chemical and its strategic partner, GlaxoSmithKline}. By posting his article as an advertisement, Egilman bypassed a system of information suppression. His motives were not for fame or glory, but to publish material to those who are interested and have a say in such issues. I for one give Egilman a thumbs up. Very insightful approach to the problem.

    • Re:approach (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @08:42AM (#12476117) Journal
      Since you're the only person commenting on the subject, I'll stick my points here:

      1) Peer review is there to determine scientific correctness, not whether a paper should be published or not. There is nothing inappropriate about editorial prescreening for fit and impact -- otherwise the peer review system would be overrun. This manuscript was a criticism of a paper in a different, obscure journal and it's not in the least surprising that it was rejected before review. It should have been submitted as an unreviewed letter to the original journal.

      2) Any additional exposure his paper may have gained through this stunt is more than balanced out by the fact that Egilman will now permanently be known in the field as "the nut who ran his stupid letter as an advertisement".

      3) The "indirect ties" thing is ludicrous. Anyone who works in a field has "indirect ties" of that degree. Egilman, as I said, is a paranoid nut but the real idiot here is the editor at International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health who used this as an opportunity to throw dirt at a competitor. As though his journal has never rejected a paper about which a similarly far-fetched conspiracy theory could have been made.

      • Peer review is there to determine scientific correctness, not whether a paper should be published or not.

        I have to disagree - I've refereed for several journals, and always one element of review is whether this is the appropriate journal or not.

        In a couple cases I know the editor followed my recommendation and had the article published in an affiliated journal which was more appropriate. The "affiliated journal" thing is important, because if it was simply rejected it would've had to be refereed a

        • Absolutely true -- I was simplifying for brevity. My point was that there's nothing unusual or improper about rejecting submissions without going to peer review at all.

  • No Story... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 )
    So a magazine chooses not to publish an article, the author than pays to publish it in the same magazine, and a few people tell him it's interesting. Maybe I just don't get it, because to me there is no story here. Or at least not much of a story.
    • So a magazine chooses not to publish an article, the author than pays to publish it in the same magazine,

      What Piquepaille neglected to mention is that it was actually a test run for the new "pay to publish" system most scientific journals are considering.

  • Another Roland Piquepaille special! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WasterDave ( 20047 ) <davep@z e d k e p.com> on Monday May 09, 2005 @01:17AM (#12473963)
    Because of Slashdot's famously high editorial standards, another Piquepaille blog plug gets popped onto the front page.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another few hundred links that may actually be of interest to nerds and that may actually matter go rotting in the submission queue.

    Jesus wept. What have we done to deserve this?

    Dave
    • "Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another few hundred links that may actually be of interest to nerds and that may actually matter go rotting in the submission queue."

      If Slashdot isn't supplying what you demand, then seek a new site.

      Seriously, do you expect him to go away if all his submissions generate 100+ comments even if half of them are bitch bitch bitching? Let me put it another way: We still have dupes, stories with factual errors, and grammar abuse in the articles.
    • What have you done to deserve this? Stuck with Slashdot, and put up with its faults. You want a better "REAL news for nerds, stuff that ACTUALLY matters", go start one.

      No, seriously. If you think /. is getting a free ride, time to set up in competition.
      • Well, it's a great theory. In truth however, starting anew is not a blanket solution nor usually even the best option. Why not spend a small amount of time in order to fix a fundamental flaw in an otherwise excellent design?

        As well, your rhethorical solution fails to preserve the momentum and history of the community that we all have spent years developing.
    • When has /. ever claimed to have high editorial standards? It's a site where potentially interesting stuff get's posted, not some professional journalism outlet.

      If anything's hurting Slashdot, it's the posters, especially all the annoying morons who seem to have crawled out of the woodwork for this article.

      Get a life.
      • An I even enjoyed this article a fair bit. Methinks too many /.ers have little better to do with their Monday morning then get their adrenaline going with some self-induced hypertension

        .
        -shpoffo
    • Yeah! Why did this stupid story get published while the interesting story i submited got rejected? I think i'll pay for an advertisement^W^W^W^W copy-paste my submission as a post in another unrelated story while complaining bitterly about the stupidity of the editors!

  • If no-one else seems to be doing it... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think _I_ have to get my hands on this Roland Pigfucker and quite simply murder him. I want to get rid of his shitty stories already! God damn editors! Wake up! No-one wants Rolands retarded content-free-overrhyped-shit-articles.

  • ahhhh!!!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @01:35AM (#12474028)
    FUCK YOU ROLAND! FUCK. YOU. I have posted here for 6 years, submitted and had accepted many stories and have excellent karma so I don't care if this one, out of character post loses me a few karma points. Every damn time I click a link in a story without first looking at the submitter and find myself at your uninformative useless advert vehicle of a "website" (and this is an often occurrence) I feel like I've been trolled. The fact that you have the shameless audacity to ask the readers of your submissions to "Read this [primidi.com] summary before telling me what you think and if you've heard about a similar story." is vile and scummy. I have heard and previously agreed with all the "who cares it's just a dumb /. submission by some loser" appeals to better temperament but this has got to be like the 20th time this has happened and it really get's my goat. You are trolling your own readers for advertiser cash and that is disgusting. I don't know if you give kickbacks to Taco or what (or maybe they just don't give a shit), but the fact that /. keeps posting your non-stories reflects extremely poorly on the status of any journalistic integrity /. claims to have.
    • Took the words out of my mouth man. I feel the pain...

    • Re:ahhhh!!!!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:08AM (#12474149) Homepage Journal
      " keeps posting your non-stories reflects extremely poorly on the status of any journalistic integrity /. claims to have."

      Where does Slashdot claim to have any journalistic integrity?
      • It doesn't, but it is generally held to a higher standard than a typical blog or webvert. Much of the time, it actually upholds a very high standard of integrity - better than many current media outlets - with any public retractions or updates added onto the front page, rather than tucked away out of sight.

        So, while Slashdot makes no claims itself, many geeks act as if Slashdot was about as trustable as an online source is going to get. Usually - not always, Cmdr Taco isn't God - Slashdot is an extremely

        • Re:ahhhh!!!!!!! (Score:3, Informative)

          by NanoGator ( 522640 )
          "It doesn't, but it is generally held to a higher standard than a typical blog or webvert. Much of the time, it actually upholds a very high standard of integrity - better than many current media outlets - with any public retractions or updates added onto the front page, rather than tucked away out of sight."

          Wow, I seriously disagree with this. Slashdot has demonstrated bias and sensationalism numerous times. If you like Linux, FireFox, OSS in general, Farscape, etc then you're happy here. If you don't

      • Re:ahhhh!!!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by deglr6328 ( 150198 )
        Outlets which publish interviews [slashdot.org] with leaders in the science and tech fields, book reviews [slashdot.org], editorials [slashdot.org] and politics commentary [slashdot.org] generally need some kind of integrity, else why would anyone give any credence to their publication? Why read it at all? The journalistic integrity is implicit. Let me be clear, I think /. is still a great place. I [slashdot.org] really [slashdot.org] love [slashdot.org] the fact that there is a place where I can submit [slashdot.org] articles I think are cool and that I think others here will be interested in and then see insightful and fas

    • Re:ahhhh!!!!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @02:15AM (#12474171)
      I agree that Roland's "stories" have got to stop - but is there anything we can do to further this end? (and I don't mean hack/ddos his site, although I'm surprised that hasn't happenned yet). I'm all for complaining when things suck, but seriously is there anything we *CAN* do to stop this? Maybe a firefox plugin that filters Roland out?

      I know that the editors don't actually read the site - the dupes pretty much prove that - but seriously, I'm paying for this site. I made a choice to subscribe, before Roland came around. Slashdot has had it's moments but seriously... Come on guys!

      • but is there anything we can do to further this end

        Here's one idea...
        1. Have someone who shares our anti-Roland sentiments write some original, intriguing content that is exemplary of the type of 'news' and/or 'stuff' that matters to the patrons of this website.
        2. Submit above to slashdot.
        3. Set a threshold on the serving website, so that the interesting content switches to a complaint on Roland Piquepaille, when the server load reaches some $CRITICAL_THRESHOLD.
        4. REPEAT as necessary.
        5. Eventually, the

      • I agree that Roland's "stories" have got to stop - but is there anything we can do to further this end? (and I don't mean hack/ddos his site, although I'm surprised that hasn't happenned yet).

        That's it! If we DDOS the Roland Pig-Pile's site, he'll have to stop sumbmitting his borderline-plagarism drivel. And I know just how to do it... Submit a story to Slashdot.org . If that doesn't bring his server to it's knees, nothing will.
    • In a 'real' publication, these editors will all be fired long time ago. So I'd suggest, fire timothy.
      Or, at least, cut the editor's salary by one day everytime he or she posts a dupe, false, or a scam like this.

      Slashdot really needs some competition.
      I hope someone will start a 'fork' so that we can all move over. Then slashdot might finallly do something, or become 'stuff that doesn't matter'.
  • Let's face it; professional scientific publications are outdated. Why are we trusting our input to a few groups of editors when all the articles could be published over the net? Yes, you'd still need editors to keep from being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of publications, but it'd be easier to set up as a meta-publisher/editor, meaning there would be more sources and better competition between them; and better still, scientists wouldn't have a 3 month delay between finishing their research and having
    • You're missing the whole point of peer-review. The classical model of scientific jounrals is that the edito removes obvious junk and hands the interesting articles off to the reviewers, If the reviewer, who are people in similiar fields, come back wiith "It basically looks alright", then it gets publsihed. The editor should only really be involved when the reviewers disagree. Its a simple filter to basically catch errors in the science (depending on the filed, the filter can be failry lack, or very tight).
    • I would add that most scientific journals ARE also published over the net... if you know what you're talking about...
  • I think Peggy Hill tried this maneuver. The plan was to pull the musings once the readers got hooked.

  • Roland Piquepaille (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sahrss ( 565657 )
    Screw that: Another Roland Piquepaille article.

    Slashdot IS a damn troll itself, for continuing to post that lamer's blog plugs. I am going to actively begin searching out another tech site with comments; I like a lot of the comments here at /., but the editors SUCK.
    • "Slashdot IS a damn troll itself, for continuing to post that lamer's blog plugs. I am going to actively begin searching out another tech site with comments; I like a lot of the comments here at /., but the editors SUCK."

      The editors ALWAYS sucked. I've been here quite a few years myself, and I cannot remember a single period where there wasn't SOME complaint about how incompetent the Slashdot Editors are.

      If it riles you up so much, go to news.google.com. I don't really care where you go provided you ch
      • How about some helpful suggustions for an alternate? Aside from google news :)

  • Fucking Editors (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Punboy ( 737239 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @03:34AM (#12474517) Homepage
    They dont fucking look at the links anymore. They've gone lazy. Its like "Hey look! Science -approve-." Seriously. This guy has a shameless advertisement in a link. This should NOT be allowed. I voted that we have the llama that was responsible for approving this add sacked. And we should NOT sack those responsible for sacking the llama. Ok, im done with the Monty Python jokes. Seriously, this needs to stop.

    • You're talking about Timothy. I don't think he ever looked at the links. Anyway, I wonder what else the Slashdot editors have to do, and how much they're getting paid for this. Even if they do a good job they do what, sort through a bunch of spam and pick out 5-10 interesting stories a day? Sounds like 1 or 2 hours of work a day which could be done from anywhere in the world that has internet access, and that's assuming really quality due diligence (which I highly doubt we see). Moreover, there is very

  • boobie-shaped clouds (Score:3, Funny)

    by qurk ( 87195 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @04:36AM (#12474721)
    Heya. Since I just read all the articles and EVERY ONE is bashing on this roland guy, I figured I'd post something different :)

    I was driving through a heavy downpour on my way home from work tonight, and it stopped raining about 2 miles east of my home, and on the last stretch, I noticed some very cool clouds. I looked up, and they were right above me! Dozens of droopy boob clouds! :) Very cool!

    I had bookmarked this site a few weeks ago and glad I did, now. The boobie clouds I saw were a little more defined than the ones in the pictures here, but not as pretty with sunset. I guess they are called Mammatus clouds.

    http://www.extremeinstability.com/05-4-19.htm [extremeinstability.com]

    As an aside, the last time I remember seeing these clouds was when I heard about tornadoes likely about 100 miles to the NorthEast, and the fact that the entire east side of the sky was a heck of a cloud system. So I hit the road, drove past the tornado about 5 miles away (found the hail though!) and about 20 miles later I got to where they had predicted the tornado..but instead I got to see these awesome boobie clouds. Much better than the ones I saw tonight or in the pictures on that page. Perfect, droopy, half-spheres everywhere. Was cool :)

  • Headline cut short (Score:5, Funny)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <.fidelcatsro. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:06AM (#12474824) Journal
    It is ment to read
    Rejected Scientific Paper Recycled as an Ad for Roland Piquepailles Blog
    • To fill out that a bit ,
      I should note that it was a joke , I don't begrude the editors or Mr Piquapaille for this . Slashdot and Piquepailles (gonna call him roland from now on , god thats a tricky name to type)blog are both comercial sites and as such this is how they garner revenue (Advertising).

      I don't know if the rumours of Timothy pushing the blogs for financial gain are true or if it just so happens its a coincidence , It dosn't really matter to me.
      If the story holds some intrest , then fair play if
      • Can't subscribers view a user's submissions, both rejected and accepted, or am I mistakened? Either way, one can't deny he does have an extremely suspiciously high acceptace-rate, and that his blog is pretty much crap.

        Roland #1 [slashdot.org]
        Roland #2 [slashdot.org]
        • Can't deny that there is alot of evidence .
          I wouldnt care atall if they admited it and were open about the fact(if it is really hapening), i just dont like Ads which pretend to be factual information .

  • Groklaw? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Craig Maloney ( 1104 ) *
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this guy is blatanly using Groklaw's graphics and color scheme. When I first clicked on the link, I thought "Hmmm... wonder what Groklaw is doing covering this story". Pretty sad.
  • After having his paper censored by Science magazine for spurious reasons [climateaudit.org], Benny Peiser should pay for an advert instead!

    Why didn't somebody think of it before?
  • On slashdot rejected ads are recycled as articles!

  • Roland (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The most convincing argument that Roland Piquepaille is paying the Slashdot editors is that, at the time of writing, reading this story at +5 threshold, there are only three comments at +5, and all of them are complaining about him. The most recent Roland advertisments have all been the same. And yet the Slashdot editors continue to post his adverts.

  • Sweeping changes are due anyway (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Monday May 09, 2005 @11:26AM (#12477710) Homepage Journal
    With the NIH insisting on open access to any papers published on research they've funded and a general call by scientists to open up free access to older journals we'll be seeing a change in the journal system of publishing very shortly. With electronic publishing of the text alongside the paper copies there's really no reason not to open peer review up to everyone who reads the article.

    I think that any paper that meets a journals criteria should be put online and any interested party can vote as to the merits of the piece. The best and most interesting papers will become featured and the worse will be put to the back of the que. Papers that are so far advanced that their merits aren't recognized for years will have the option of becoming featured when they meet a threshold of other papers citing them. Papers that become seminal can be bound once each year for more perminant archiving. Nothing is lost in this system and no paper is rejected because one or two reviewers are jealous or don't quite understand the authors intent.

  • People who are not interested in reading this researcher's "ad" are also not likely to be interested in taking the time to respond "no" to his survey.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close