From: Gail Clement <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 13:56:27 +0000

My take on this interesting new Economist piece concerning faults in
science publishing is that this coverage is not related to the
Bohannon/Science.  Rather, it relates to new concerns emerging largely
from the biomedical publishing community about lack of reproducibility
for published findings in the biomed literature.  This topic got
significant coverage at last month's International Peer Review
Conference, a forum for mostly science editors and publishers (500)
that attracted a few wayward or intrepid librarians (3). The keynote
by Ionnidis presented compelling evidence about the lack of
reproducibility of published findings -- these studies were mentioned
in the Economist piece.

If anything, the Economist piece gives more impetus for science
authors to expose sufficient data and metadata to allow for
verification of their conclusions and claims.   Public data deposit
seems to be an important element in achieving transparency,
accountability, and, ultimately, trust in science (and other domains
as well!)

Gail Clement


> On Oct 19, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 08:53:42 -0400
>
> Of possible interest:
>
> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
>
> Editorial and linked article on limits of peer review,
> irreproducibility of surprisingly large proportion of published
> articles -- more fallout from the Bohannon sting?  The article notes
> that he submitted to lower-tier journals; doesn't make the open access
> correlation.