BioMed Central and the Casualties of Scientific Fraud

Since this is a community for discussing scientific articles, what better place to talk about the massive withdrawal of over 40 papers from journals under the umbrella of Open Access juggernaut, BioMed Central. The editorial originally shared by +Frank Rummel overviews this recent crack-down. It should be known that BioMed Central itself is heading the investigation and has been key in initiating the article retractions. What brought on this series of events? In simplest terms, the peer-review process was dishonored to allow papers to move toward publication unchecked.

BioMed Central has nearly 300 journals in its catalog, and has now made great steps forward in reversing the processing and publication of such articles. But the question is, with so many journals, have they really scratched the surface in identifying all the papers that have undeservedly moved toward publication in their journals via fraudulent review practices? And we must consider, this is just one publisher, albeit a large one. There are countless other Open Access publishers out there and popping up every day in addition to the numerous traditional subscription-based publishers.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has put forth a statement that it has “become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers.” So, this is not just limited to BioMed Central. I just posted an article describing a policy to allow peer reviewers to be paid for their services. I hardly think this is a good idea. If the peer review process can be manipulated to allow publication of papers when reviewers are doing it voluntarily (if at all), paying peer reviewers, no matter the method or manner in which it is done, seems counter productive in addressing this problem. Money often seems to make bad things worse when it comes to fraud and skirting the system.


So, I hope we can all appreciate the problems that are being brought to light, and the numerous others that likely have not. As a scientist, I accept and honor the peer review process, as both an author and reviewer. I believe it is a cornerstone of keeping the scientific literature respectable and the best way available to allow science self-regulation and oversight. These headlines do help the public image of science or scientists, and chip away at the foundations and sully the purity of the science that keeps most researchers going day in and day out. Still, I hope the bad is revealed for what it is so all will know where the problems lie and give us the best course of action for avoiding repetition of such problems for science in the future. Thanks again to +Frank Rummel for sharing this article and stimulating this post. 

Peer review...what is it good for, you may ask? Peer review is a key factor in scientific publication, and permits a scientist's peers, or other scientists, to preview the work before consideration for acceptance at reputable scientific journals. This preview is in place to provide a screen for scientific work, and the reviewer should highlight the positive aspects and provide details in the spirit of constructive criticism that the authors and journal editors should take note of that weaken the strength of the submitted article. If the problems are too numerous or the foundation of the study is fatally flawed, the paper will not be recommended for publication. However, if the reviewers feel the paper is novel in concept, timely in its presentation, and fundamentally sound in its hypotheses, methodology, analysis, and interpretation, it may be accepted as is by the journal and sent on its way to production in preparation for publication. Acceptance "as is" is not common, as at least a few issues are usually brought to the attention of the authors and editors that need to be addressed, fixed, or modified before the paper can be seriously considered for acceptance for publication. The editors generally weigh the reviewers' recommendations and comments, and present authors with a decision. In the latter case, this might be a decision that the article may be acceptable after major revision in addressing the key comments, questions and suggestions put forth by the peer reviewers. From my long-winder description, you can expect this peer review process usually takes a considerable amount of time, editorial deliberation time not included. And did I mention that peer reviewers do this voluntarily and "pay it forward" toward the greater good of science? Sometimes, reviewers' criticism comes from a place not so constructive, but rather destructive, which can really sting. Perhaps it is unintentional, but it is painful, nonetheless.


Authors want to get their articles published to increase their productivity, and boost their chances of getting grants an so on. Peer review, though highly necessary, can seriously slow this process down so some scientists with fewer scruples than the average scientist asks some buddies to be peer reviewers for their manuscript. Or they may even find themselves an opportunity to provide their OWN review of their paper, bypassing peer review altogether. Now the paper stands a great shot at publication without bothersome revisions or potential rejections due to poor science, or whatever the problems that might have been brought to light in the traditional peer review process. This is what happened with BioMed Central.

Dozens Of Scientific Papers Withdrawn After Peer-Review Fraud Uncovered
March 29, 2015 | by Stephen Luntz
IFLScience

High-speed label-free functional photoacoustic microscopy for rapid imaging of blood flow in the brain

The ability to image blood flow and even transgenic gene expression and cell labeling in animals has been accomplished for awhile now using technologies such as two-photon microscopy. An intriguing technique just published in Nature Methods by Yao et al. termed High-speed label-free functional photoacoustic microscopy possesses the capability for extremely rapid imaging of in vivo imaging of vascular blood flow.

This technology works by bouncing "laser beams off red blood cells" and has sub-millisecond resolution, which is a little faster than the time it takes a neuron to fire. Plus, it has a demonstrated spatial resolution much greater than that for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The technology certainly has great potential for enhancing experimental capabilities for studying vascular events and circulation in animal models. I can only imagine this would be extremely useful in a clinical setting where resolution and time are key factors in imaging such events for diagnosis and selecting treatments for cerebrovascular disorders such as aneurisms and stroke. This report is exciting, and the images from the study are stunning. This post links to the editorial in Science on the study, and I have provided a link to the actual article below, although there is a paywall for full access to the article.

Junie Yao et al. (2015) High-speed label-free functional photoacoustic microscopy of mouse brain in action. http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nmeth.3336.html.

Darwin's "strangest creatures" now have a back story

In 1871, W.H. Flower stated, "Few districts of the world are so rich in well-preserved remains of an extinct fauna of remarkable and interesting character as the neighbourhood of the city of Buenos Ayres." Now it appears we have some clear understanding of the phylogenetic relation of some of these curious South American ungulates.

Macrauchenia and Toxodon, referred to by Darwin as possibly the strangest animals ever discovered, are shown from molecular evidence in ancient proteins preserved in fossilized bone to be mostly related to horses and hippos in a new Nature paper involving an extensive global collaborative effort. It is great to see new techniques answer old long-standing questions with many scientists coming together for the common cause.

Welker et al. (2015) Ancient proteins resolve the evolutionary history of Darwin’s South American ungulates, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature14249.