Tag Archives: Peer review

The journal of Errology (JoE)

18 Jan

Rare are publishers who dare to publish errors: BioFlukes and The All Results Journals are one of them.

Publishing his owns errors seems at a first look very courageous. But acting like this could be collectively a step forward. Science like life goes ahead with a succession of failures and successes. Letting known the former to the scientific community could indeed enhance the chances of the latter to occur. But human selfishness will reduce drastically the number of author who will submit their errors to such a journal. Unless anonymous submission is an option . Such a journal of errology will deserve a great advertising before the launch: I thought of: Free of charge, no submission fee, open access and pseudonyms accepted!
Anyway, no more joking, in health services, awareness of misleading recommendations or discovery of errors in assessment procedures of guideline’s respect should merit a journal of Errology. Three comments on the topic posted on retraction watch made me laugh: I pasted theme below:
The first comment:
Great find! I think I should submit the story of my life to them!
The fourth comment:
I would like to submit a manuscript to Journal of Errology but, unfortunately, my research project worked.
And last the example of a paper full of errors you can access in full text here.

Read more on retraction watch.


Research Works Act

7 Jan

Free access to publicly funded research

English: This is the first issue of California...

Image via Wikipedia

How can people access freely to publicly funded research results?
From two things one: – either the government agencies buy the copyrights of privates scholarly publishers and then make available articles on governmental web sites
– or it publish himself the final reports or the intermediate or progress reports that the publicly funded researchers have produced.
But one thing for sure, since the recent “research works act” bill, the government or the federal agencies have no more the possibility to force or to mandate for free, by rule, the dissemination of the private scholarly publications issued from the peer reviewed journals.

A third possibility should be the government using the open access journals, but in that case instead of buying the copyrights afterward, federal agencies will be charged before the publication procedure.

Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that the fundamental difference between a final report of a research work and a peer reviewed article issued from the same research work are: – the length (average length for a report: 60 pages vs 20 for an article), – the use of technical and complex words in the writing (because the articles are peer reviewed and aimed at the intention of a wider number of readers, mostly outside the institution, technical words and context have to be explained), – the transfer of responsibility in case of mistake or falsification of data (private publisher are eager to retract the article if a falsification or a conflict of interest is disclosed but will a federal agencies do the same?) and last but not least – scholarly publications are the products of multinational, world-wide expanded, globalised enterprises that are independent from the policy of a single state. And this must be seen as a guarantee of the independence of science from political pressure like, for example, the recent attempt by the US government to stop the publication by a Netherlander searchers team of their findings on the H5N1 flu virus mutation capacity (see here and here for more information).

Below are three references if you want to read more on the topic of the dissemination of research works:

1)My Argument for Public Access to Research Reports


2)Publishers Applaud “Research Works Act,”Bipartisan Legislation To End

Government Mandates on Private-Sector Scholarly Publishing


3)A BILLTo ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-

reviewed research works by the private sector.


Bad science

26 Nov
Physician treating a patient. Red-figure Attic...

Image via Wikipedia

Square root of x formula. Symbol of mathematics.
Image via Wikipedia








A greek is struggling against bad science in medical field.

This bio statistician, named Georgia Salanti, has undertaken a mathematical critical appraisal of medical studies published in scholarly journals.

An other scientist named Ioannidis  selected 45 high impact articles which have demonstrated a significant effect of the intervention or the care they had  studied.

He found that 41 percent of these articles he analysed where mathematically wrong in their statements of a significant effect. The full text of the study is readable here.

%d bloggers like this: