helenwinslow

hmm...mild-mannered physicist by day, stand-up comedian by night. I like it! Note to academic journal editorial boards: say "internet." Say "transparency." Now put the two words together and repeat often. You'll get it sooner or later!

mythusmage

What this essay shows us is how ego can affect how people respond to correction. It takes a lot of courage and maturity to entertain another's disagreement, and to see how another could be right. We all have our pet ideas, and we tend to be protective of them. Fictional reviewer #2 sounds like the kind of person it would be a good idea to have a discussion with regarding the comment, the paper commented on, and the original work the paper purportedly debunked. Unfortunately, a print journal really isn't the sort of thing for that. Prior to the Internet the only real alternative was through correspondence---assuming the other person responded at all, or to participate in an amateur press association dedicated to the subject in question. Today there are alternatives, blogging or an online publication for example. But then the problem becomes one of letting people know where your work can be found, and gaining a reputation for reliability when there are people out there ready to denounce your work for some reason or another. Prof. Trebino, keep fighting the good fight. The scientific publication culture is changing thanks to the Web and will continue to change. When the fences fall down guarding the gates becomes a rather useless enterprise.

ron_fox3877

Trebino's story and another by Ted Hill are complementary, the first about trying to correct false claims about one's own work, and the second about trying to correct someone else's false work. I have added both to some stories of my own at http://www.fefox.com under the heading Science and Integrity, an introduction to which is also on Scribd: http:// www.scribd.com/doc/19495234/Science-a... Trebino and Hill do a great service to young scientists everywhere.

tphill

Bravo to Professor Trebino! Parts of the system are indeed broken, but we CAN help improve it. A very good place to start is to follow Trebino’s example and go public. Inspired by his article, I wrote up one of my own recent true experiences (in mathematics) “How to Publish Counterexamples in 1 2 3 Easy Steps” posted at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19819297/Ho.... I strongly encourage others to add their own stories to the record.

westfalr

The past editor of the leading journal in a certain field published something in the number two journal a few years ago. He made some absurd statements derived from a very flawed understanding of mathematical statistics. He supported them with quotations from an eighteenth century philosopher, without any reference to more recent philosophical considerations on those issues. (Try to slip that one by a dissertation committee!) One of my relatives, an academic in the field of mathematical statistics, co-authored an article exposing the flaws in the original paper and submitted it to the same journal. The reviewers stalled them by asking for multiple rewrites over several years and then rejected the rebuttal even while conceding that many of the objections were valid. Accountability is a wonderful thing. It would be nice if there was some way that people who do stuff like what you mentioned could be publicly exposed. The Journal of Irreproducible Results is a step in the right direction, but it's focus on humor rather than exposing fraudulence is a definite limitation. What we really need is a Journal of Bogus Science. Unfortunately that would require some expensive legal help to prevent lawsuits against whistle blowers. Anyone know any lawyers that might be willing to go pro bono on that?

westfalr

The past editor of the leading journal in a certain field published something in the number two journal in the field a few years ago. He made some absurd statements derived from a very flawed understanding of mathematical statistics. He supported them with quotations from an eighteenth century philosopher, without any reference to more recent philosophical considerations on those issues. (Try to slip that one by a dissertation committee!) One of my relatives, an academic in the field of mathematical statistics, co-authored an article exposing the flaws in the original paper and submitted it to the same journal. The reviewers stalled them by asking for multiple rewrites over several years and then rejected the rebuttal even while conceding that many of the objections were valid.

westfalr

The past editor of the leading journal in my field published something in the number two journal in the field a few years ago. He made some absurd statements derived from a very flawed understanding of mathematical statistics. He supported them with quotations from an eighteenth century philosopher, without any reference to more recent philosophical considerations on those issues. (Try to slip that one by a dissertation committee!) One of my relatives, an academic in the field of mathematical statistics, co-authored an article exposing the flaws in the original paper and submitted it to the same journal. The reviewers stalled them by asking for multiple rewrites over several years and then rejected the rebuttal even while conceding that many of the objections were valid.

esmailrw

Wilner's email address is wilner@usc.edu

esmailrw

FYI, the name of the senior editor is Alan E. Willner, University of Southern California.

esmailrw

It took me about thirty seconds to find the scientific comment he tried to publish. It was right there on the front page of his website: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/frog/am... Now the world will know who exactly is to blame

MatthewGarcia

This is brilliant! It's too bad that it's probably too long for a traditional print journal to publish, ironically, and they likely wouldn't go for the commentary on their own "standards and procedures," but the open-access community is growing and you might find a great place for it in a journal or magazine there. In fact, check out SeedMagazine.com--they might very well be progressive enough to see the value in your honest and open commentary (and on such a factual basis) on the state of scientific publishing. I like the way you named it, too--it's not "1-2-3 steps" but literally "123 steps..." and scientists who can appreciate that and chuckle at the small inanities of their own endeavors are exactly the ones who are serious enough about their work, and the work of their colleagues, to help reform the publication process.

lyzrusso

It's a sad fact that what is called "science" today often doesn't have much in common with actual science (the pursuit of knowledge and truth). Where ego overrules honesty, "science" turns to dogma, and dogma, as we know, is something you cannot attack and hope to win...

ricktrebino

I'd like to thank everyone for reading my story and for providing their comments! It's great that so many people care about this topic. I've just uploaded a new version with another addendum that contains responses to all the comments and questions posted here and elsewhere. Thanks again!

daimonos

Did you take legal advice? How long was it before you did so? Why did you wait so long?

crljones

Very entertaining. Proof that Comedy is always true to life. Pity that Journals don't employ more people who can read. To manage junk I think Journals should insist that any correspondence should be via paper post ONLY. That would cut down on alot of gratuitous communications (ok, except for this )