6 ms·

Peronsally, IMO: you should submit methodology--including the data analysis and statistical tests you'll perform, to a journal before the study has been conduct

Peronsally, IMO: you should submit methodology--including the data analysis and statistical tests you'll perform, to a journal before the study has been conducted. Then, they say yes or no and if yes you perform the study and as long as it is performed to the approved specifications, you get published.

latchkey 4y ago
Wouldn't that just put the journals in control of what studies get performed (as well as what gets published)? Seems weird to give all that power to the journals.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Well, they are already in control of what studies get published, what isn't much different. I do think they shouldn't control that, but it's a deeper change, for a different gain.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    It is a lot different because if the study isn't published in one journal, it could always be published in another. In this situation, the study wouldn't be done at all until a journal agreed to publish it.
    - hiptobecubic 4y ago
      You could submit your proposal to other journals as well though
      - latchkey 4y ago
        If I was a journal, and I was promising to publish a study once it is completed, I'd ask for exclusivity rights. Which goes to show the whole issue with this idea.
        marcosdumay 4y ago
        Again that didn't change anything when compared to the current situation. Journals do ask for exclusivity when they publish things. The don't ask for it just for submission. And the same reasons for why they don't now (nobody would submit anything to them) apply for the OP's idea. In fact, all the changes only make the life of the researcher easier, because he would only have to present a proposal for the journals to deny. Now he has to complete his research before he gets the denial. (It also makes the life of the journals much harder, for the same reason.)
        latchkey 4y ago
        > Again that didn't change anything when compared to the current situation. Journals do ask for exclusivity when they publish things. The don't ask for it just for submission. You contradict yourself. It absolutely changes things. > Now he has to complete his research before he gets the denial. It could degrade the incentive for the researcher to do great work, if they knew that they would be published.
- watwut 4y ago
  There are already pre-print servers where you can pre-register your studies. It is not mandatory, but it is a think.
evandijk70 4y ago
It sounds nice, but this will make for very boring journals with 90% negative results due to problems with the methodology. Here an example of a typical project, where researchers are interested in the role of gene X in blood vessel formation in cancer, which could make it a good target for a cancer treatment. They want to knock the gene out and measure the blood vessel formation in an in vitro model. Publication 1. - We attempted to knock this gene out in this cell line, but due to an infection the cell line died. The installation was sterilized, the stored master cell bank was unfrozen, and we updated our sterilization protocols. Publication 2. - We attempted to knock this gene out in this cell line, but sequencing showed that there were off-target effects introduced. Reagents should be changed to be more specific. Publication 3. - The gene was succesfully knocked, but we found that a homologous gene appeared to activate the same pathway. The homologous gene should be knocked out as well to study the function of the gene. Publication 4. - The gene was successfully knocked out by disabling the gene and its homologue. The assay we used to study blood vessel formation was flawed. Due to insufficient oxygen supply, the positive and negative controls for blood vessel formation did not grow. New experiments should increase oxygen flow. Publication 5. - We successfully studied the function of the gene and found that it does not impact blood vessel formation in cell line x. This is how the majority of research projects end up. However, other researchers will be looking for a biological target to treat cancer X, and the information obtained by this series of experiments is not interesting. This is just one out of 99% of 30,000 genes that are not suitable treatment targets. The conclusions are only interesting for researchers focused on gene x (and maybe its homologue), and potentially for researchers developing methodology. Questions answered were different than the original ones posed.

latchkey 4y ago

Wouldn't that just put the journals in control of what studies get performed (as well as what gets published)? Seems weird to give all that power to the journals.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Well, they are already in control of what studies get published, what isn't much different. I do think they shouldn't control that, but it's a deeper change, for a different gain.
- latchkey 4y ago
  It is a lot different because if the study isn't published in one journal, it could always be published in another. In this situation, the study wouldn't be done at all until a journal agreed to publish it.
  - hiptobecubic 4y ago
    You could submit your proposal to other journals as well though
    - latchkey 4y ago
      If I was a journal, and I was promising to publish a study once it is completed, I'd ask for exclusivity rights. Which goes to show the whole issue with this idea.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        Again that didn't change anything when compared to the current situation. Journals do ask for exclusivity when they publish things. The don't ask for it just for submission. And the same reasons for why they don't now (nobody would submit anything to them) apply for the OP's idea. In fact, all the changes only make the life of the researcher easier, because he would only have to present a proposal for the journals to deny. Now he has to complete his research before he gets the denial. (It also makes the life of the journals much harder, for the same reason.)
        latchkey 4y ago
        > Again that didn't change anything when compared to the current situation. Journals do ask for exclusivity when they publish things. The don't ask for it just for submission. You contradict yourself. It absolutely changes things. > Now he has to complete his research before he gets the denial. It could degrade the incentive for the researcher to do great work, if they knew that they would be published.
watwut 4y ago
There are already pre-print servers where you can pre-register your studies. It is not mandatory, but it is a think.

evandijk70 4y ago

It sounds nice, but this will make for very boring journals with 90% negative results due to problems with the methodology. Here an example of a typical project, where researchers are interested in the role of gene X in blood vessel formation in cancer, which could make it a good target for a cancer treatment. They want to knock the gene out and measure the blood vessel formation in an in vitro model. Publication 1. - We attempted to knock this gene out in this cell line, but due to an infection the cell line died. The installation was sterilized, the stored master cell bank was unfrozen, and we updated our sterilization protocols. Publication 2. - We attempted to knock this gene out in this cell line, but sequencing showed that there were off-target effects introduced. Reagents should be changed to be more specific. Publication 3. - The gene was succesfully knocked, but we found that a homologous gene appeared to activate the same pathway. The homologous gene should be knocked out as well to study the function of the gene. Publication 4. - The gene was successfully knocked out by disabling the gene and its homologue. The assay we used to study blood vessel formation was flawed. Due to insufficient oxygen supply, the positive and negative controls for blood vessel formation did not grow. New experiments should increase oxygen flow. Publication 5. - We successfully studied the function of the gene and found that it does not impact blood vessel formation in cell line x. This is how the majority of research projects end up. However, other researchers will be looking for a biological target to treat cancer X, and the information obtained by this series of experiments is not interesting. This is just one out of 99% of 30,000 genes that are not suitable treatment targets. The conclusions are only interesting for researchers focused on gene x (and maybe its homologue), and potentially for researchers developing methodology. Questions answered were different than the original ones posed.