The Problem with Selling Science

VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JORDAN LOGUE

The most important step of the scientific method is the final step: reporting your results. That’s how we as a society gain knowledge so quickly, as it simply isn’t possible to do all experiments for ourselves individually. Part of the publication process involves submitting the research to a scientific journal, where reviewers read and dissect the work presented to them and judge the methods used and validity of the results. Ideally, this would be a process that was completely based on quality of work. Unfortunately, it is not.

Photo Credit: clemsonunivlibrary

Nobel Prize winner for Physiology and Medicine and UC Berkeley professor Dr. Randy Schekman has made waves for calling out prestigious scientific journals such as Science, Nature, and Cell. Any biology student that reads this should be astounded by that statement, as those are the three biggest journal names in the field. They are the top tier for biology publishing. Publications in those journals are how careers are made. And yet three months after winning the Nobel for his research in cell vesicle trafficking, Dr. Schekman took to The Guardian to air his grievances with how major journals go about selecting papers.

In his statements, Dr. Schekman states that papers are judged by journals not just by the quality of the research done, but by what he called “impact factor,” or the number of times a paper is referenced by other researchers. This impact factor could be anything: media buzzwords, rapidly expanding  new fields, research based on a famous event, etc. In Dr. Schekman’s words, “A paper can become highly cited because it is good science – or because it is eye-catching, provocative or wrong. Luxury-journal editors know this, so they accept papers that will make waves because they explore sexy subjects or make challenging claims. This influences the science that scientists do. It builds bubbles in fashionable fields where researchers can make the bold claims these journals want, while discouraging other important work, such as replication studies.”

This comes into play tremendously when journals place limits on the number of papers that can be published and have to prioritize the papers they have received.  Journals limit the number of papers published per year, and the more prestigious the journal, the more applicants there are trying to get the spotlight shown on their work. And while some research lacks the flashy new discoveries or is related to highly publicized topics like cancer, genetics, or climate change, that does not mean they should be ignored.

Schekman cites a pattern of publications publishing research that is sub-par in quality but grabs headlines from major news organizations and boosts sales of journals. This leads to more retractions from these journals, more funding wasted on flawed research that may be based off of the faulty publication, and more media misinformation about the field to the public. We’re still battling major public health concerns because of the retracted Lancet article from Andrew Wakefield linking autism to vaccines, and the public health and public opinion battle of the next generation will most likely be predicated on how exactly the public handles the retraction of the Seralini papers on Monsanto’s GMO products and pesticides. For any journal to allow substandard work to be published is regrettable, but for what are supposed to be the highest quality journals possible to do this is unacceptable. And it is for this reason that complete overhaul of the publication of scientific research is not only necessary, but already underway.

Open access journals are free to read online publications with no artificial caps on the number of papers accepted. As many are edited by scientists, the quality is assessed without regard to impact factor. As they are non-profit and free to the public, there is no concern over how many or how few people will want to read the papers published there. eLife, for instance, is an open access journal, that is not only edited by Dr. Schekman, but financially supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, and the Wellcome Trust.

Not all responsibility for change lies with the publication side of science, however. Universities and organizations responsible for funding research such as the National Science Foundation must change the process for funding away from the results driven research that we’ve seen in the past. We cannot throw money at low quality studies just because they involve big name topics and leave high quality work in other areas wanting. Scientists and the media must also take responsibility, and stop judging papers by the quality of the journal, but rather judge the journal by the quality of the paper. We are becoming too accepting of research just because it was printed in this journal or that journal.

Inviting a monopoly into scientific discovery means that big name journals receive more attention than they deserve, big name institutions and research topics receive more funding than they deserve, and everyone else suffers from it. Not just the scientist with potentially paradigm shifting research that went unfunded, but the average person who sees headlines about a faulty scientific breakthrough and pays taxes that go to the National Science Foundation. We also lose out on large amounts of time spent debunking inaccurate studies, which in some cases pushes possible medical treatments, environmental reconstruction and protection, and other global concerns back for years.

A more publicly open and available form of scientific publication allows for a more informed populace with less of an emphasis on money and fame. This was the intention of scientific journals, but that intention is becoming corrupted by the same forces that led to the deterioration of most other forms of journalism in past decades. So long as publications are profit driven, much like almost every other form of media, they will continue to show what is popular and in demand rather than what is actually the highest quality work. To quote Dr. Schekman, “Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that is rational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better research that better serves science and society.”

Reference:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science