Earth-Pages Archive News, Other news

Anyone who submits their first paper to a journal soon becomes aware of the "peer review" process: probably the single greatest contributor to academic suspicion and anxiety. Of course, these "peers" fall into two categories: the "esteemed colleague" (helpful); the "witless wonder" (negative, and prone to crushing your paper). Write a book, a play or an operatic score, and your critics in the media have a name. You could even find out where they keep their pet rabbit. They are accountable. Yet, editors of journals claim to have a "duty of confidentiality" towards those referees who opt for anonymity: guess which category most often does. At one time or another, most academics asked for critiques by learned journals only to recommend rejection have succumbed to "taking the veil". Equally, there are few researchers who have not suffered a similar fate to one they may have meted out themselves. Learning by experience is not necessarily a strong point among scientists. A typical case came to my notice recently, but the identity of one faceless and repugnant referee eventually became clear. I know him well. He too had suffered acute stress from a grossly delayed manuscript and the vicious comment of an anonymous referee some years back, yet saw fit to indulge his own spleen when offered a place in the shade: goodness only knows why, but in this case I have my suspicions.

The whole scientific community grows increasingly uneasy about anonymous peer-review, and the abuse that it sometimes makes possible. Examples are deliberate delays by unnamed referees engaged in similar research or related commercial activity, plagiarism, incompetence and the self-indulgence of gratuitously destructive and belittling comment. It is the near-universal policy of referee anonymity that allows these unwholesome practices to fester and grow. Most journals give their referees the option of coming out of the closet, or remaining smugly behind its door. Some assume anonymity, so that a referee has to ask explicitly for their name to be revealed. Anonymous referees are simply moral cowards, along with editors of the journals that give them a cloak. What do they fear? Are direct questions about their comments cause for timidity?

Referee malpractice can be removed completely by editors refusing to allow referees to skulk behind anonymity. Now, in the UK at least, it seems possible to challenge this unwholesome editorial prerogative, because of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (2002 Scotland ), which came into force on 1 Jan 2005, and the Data Protection Act 1998. Resorting to the Acts ought not to be necessary as regards the activities of scholarly journals, yet editors continue to defend the more faceless of their referees. No doubt there would be a temporary shortage of referees should compulsory "outing" become the norm, but it would remove those who do engage in malpractice. The most important result would be an increase in objectively constructive comment, which softens the blow of a rejection slip by showing a way forward to authors. Peer-review should work both ways, and should be seen to be honest.

Back to News Archive

Top of page

Change of Geology Today's editor

Those of you who subscribe to Geology Today will have noticed that its Editor is no longer Peter J. Smith. He was the founding editor of this, the leading digest of news, comment and articles for “lay” geoscientists. Geology Today arose out of Peter's determination to develop a truly independent forum in the Earth sciences, which appeared as Open Earth back in the 1970s. One of the original five members of the Open University's Department of Earth Sciences in 1969, Peter took early retirement in March 2003. His replacement at Geology Today is Peter Doyle.

Back to News Archive

Top of page

Protecting your intellectual property

Long ago, most students entered research by thinking up their own project, albeit with advice from potential supervisors. That is rarely possible today, for many reasons. Instead, gifted students are recruited to research topics proposed to funding agencies by established scientists. More often than not, such projects slot into an overall strategy centred on an academic's career or the ambitions of a research group. There are advantages in having the sometimes undivided attention of a “boss”, a structured approach to work within a broader framework, access to a group's equipment and funding, and support from several co-thinkers. With the old style, there were risks in “ploughing a lone furrow”, such as abandonment by a disenchanted supervisor (the enchanted ones could be even more worrying). The single most important advantage of designing your own project, hard and risky as that might be, was one of possession from the outset. Such responsibility develops qualities that are otherwise not easy to get: independence of thought and action, time-management, resourcefulness, an ability to argue your case, and self-discipline – if you can really “hack” it. Except for the indolent and irrecoverably stupid, most people can, given some knowledge of where their subject is going and the sine qua non of curiosity. In those “old days”, the risks were more than offset by the advantage of ownership, and it was rare for postgraduates not to be successful, and the majority gained their doctorates within three years. Today, up to a third of enrolled graduate students withdraw or fail their degrees, and hardly any complete inside this reasonable period.

Funding agencies now demand guarantees that their outlay bears fruit. They increasingly direct lines of research, so that studentships follow previous funding. The funders are more accountable, and by the iron logic of the marketplace so too must be the recipients. The upshot is continual assessment of research performance by departments, the creation of “centres of excellence”, and the crushing of departments that do not measure up to an amoebic growth of criteria and guidelines. So, for anyone keen on testing their abilities to the limit and following their curiosity, the options are increasingly limited. Even if you have independent means, it is now a very rare department that encourages self-motivated research by students, or even by its established staff. In truth, most academics find it hard to be independent, because they no longer have the security that once guaranteed freedom of thought, action and expression. In Britain, if an academic began their career or earned promotion after 20 November 1987, they can be dismissed solely on grounds of redundancy, rather than “with good cause”, which was the rock on which tenure used to be based. “Gross moral turpitude” was, I believe, the operative and infinitely more expressive phrase in US institutions. So for your average supervisor the world has turned upside down. Now it's a case of “publish or perish”, larded with citation and impact records, and bringing cash into your institution to boost its research assessment. There are very few academics with the energy, imagination, brass neck and wit to jump through all these hoops and remain sanely independent. So we see a growth of hidden but nonetheless unwholesome vices adopted by some to survive and prosper in this deranged environment. There are many victims, but the new researcher is most at risk. During the festive season it is customary to give and receive advice, as well as greetings. Here is some that concerns the vice that dare not speak its name –plagiarism—in the form of a bestiary to help you memorise potentially risky people.

1.Chameleons Check out potential supervisors. The Science Citation Index will reveal their record of sole or senior authorship of papers (not reviews). If they are what they claim to be, that will dominate. Relative to that, how many times does their name appear within multi-author papers, of which they are not senior author? If the latter dominates, their reputation probably rests on offering technical facilities that they control, or the research talents of other people. You may find individuals who have a short publication list of either kind. They are either at the start of their career, or beyond all human help (except perhaps your own).

2.Beavers Never let anyone else do any work for you, unless they are a kindly technician (who then deserves at least an acknowledgement). Where possible, keep your research materials under your personal control – in some institutions burial is a useful tactic.

3.Curlews Be suspicious of a supervisor who shares your findings with the rest of a team; either you do that yourself or not at all.

4.Moles Although communication with others is an essential aspect of research, until you are ready to submit a paper for peer review, do not reveal all in seminars and conferences. Pay particular attention to your posters. At every conference you will see people photographing them, whom you can safely assume are after your ideas.

5.Hamsters Beware the friendly soul offering, without being asked, to read your first draft of a paper. Instead, plead with the most curmudgeonly academic around, the one who hammers your every utterance, for he or she will probably be honest.

6.Tapeworms Do not allow your supervisor to routinely add their name or others in a research team to your papers. Authorship is not based on advice, basic training in research techniques or discussion of your work. That is your supervisor's duty of care, and a good one should give far more than they take. Acknowledgements are the place to express gratitude for such assistance. Authors have to do real work, both analytical and intellectual, to deserve a place in the list.

7.Squirrels Insist that your supervisor lets you read all drafts of their papers that bear on your own field, to check that your findings are not included, as well as to learn. If your work appears, you have a right to authorship.

8.Weasels Be aware of the relationships among academics and post-docs in your department, and theirs with others in outside institutions. Keep an eye on “networking”, which often involves mutual sharing of information as well as gossip, particularly if joint bids for funding are in the offing.

9.Ravens It is easy to be pressured overtly and subtly, particularly in a large research group. That may be beneficial, but can be to get you to toe the “party line”.

10.Wolverines Never tolerate anything that seems like plagiarism, manipulation, obstruction, exploitation, bullying or harassment. Best to confront politely yet firmly the person responsible, but that is not easy. Finding someone who can help is not easy either. Your institution may well have a policy of pastoral care based on designated individuals, who are deemed to be disinterested and trustworthy. In the real world there is a culture of protecting long-term colleagues, which extends throughout a university; you are transitory... In case of difficulty, ask to change your pastoral advisor. Other students of longer standing may know who is straight, or have similar experiences. Whatever, it is essential that you get honest support to resolve such problems. One useful tactic is to air your grievances as accurately as possible in writing, with a copy to someone that you can trust.

11.Diverse enchanted beasts The most difficult obstacle to ownership can be, oddly, the genuinely honest, kindly and enthusiastic supervisor. Because of their greater experience and breadth of knowledge, your work can easily become their obsession, usually because of their frustration with your progress. They will not steal your thunder consciously, but can easily end up driving you rather than the other way round. If you want to become their creature, fine. If not, then you have battles ahead, but they will serve both of you well!