4 ms·
Having experienced bias against publishing truly novel findings, I can testify this form of bias is a potential hazard re: scientific progress. Back in the ear
by jrapdx3 10y ago
Having experienced bias against publishing truly novel findings, I can testify this form of bias is a potential hazard re: scientific progress.
Back in the early 2000's, in the course of clinical practice I encountered some unexpected outcomes of treatment which correlated to a particular, if unexpected diagnosis. I tried to find info about this, but to my surprise a thorough search of the literature came up empty.
I felt a duty to report my observations. Putting it into a formal paper was difficult for me to accomplish, but did get it organized. Believing in the idea of open access, I decided to submit to a newly established open-access publisher.
Peer review did not go smoothly. Because the subject had never been reported before, at least in a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers expressed doubt about the reality of the data. One "peer" was determined to disparage the report to the extent of making glaringly inaccurate, distorted comments about the nature of the condition in the subjects of my report. After a rigorous defense of data and procedure the editors decided to ignore the negative review and the report was published.
Novelty is not only apparent in terms of methodology or cross-discipline application of ideas, but also arises when attempting to share previously unreported observations. The closed-mindedness of many in the academic community (who are the predominant peer reviewers) is apparently a pervasive problem in the sciences, and possibly endemic in academic culture in general.
- Hondor 10y agoIt sounds like your review process went very well. Those hardened anti-novelists have probably rejected piles of genuinely crank material. They're needed to keep the literature free of true rubbish. Of course they're not perfect so sometimes rubbish gets through and sometimes good work gets blocked, but if the researcher really believes in their work, they'll go to extra lengths to break through, as you did. Maybe the world would be a slightly better place if your overly skeptical reviewer had reviewed this http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm
- jrapdx3 10y agoKeeping "rubbish" out of the journals is a reasonable goal, though judging by what's in the journals I read, you're right rubbish still leaks through from time to time. I believe I was the beneficiary of good fortune in overcoming the barriers, but luck is a very thin and unreliable conduit to success. Indeed I know authors not as lucky, and their good work was blocked. Fields of research are often highly specialized and a small community of interest can become insulated from voices outside that world. It's my impression that was the basis of the difficulty I encountered. Not that I have a solution to the problem, but I've wondered how many worthwhile novel contributions by "outsiders" not affiliated with a field's main research centers are being lost under current peer review regimes.
- teekert 10y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It very good that you pushed back so hard, I see no other way to overcome this problem. The status quo was also built on (usually) a lot of evidence, it is not good if it would be easy to overthrow.