【微评论】前段时间，媒体曝某贪官贿选院士差一票成功，今天诺贝尔奖获得者Randy Schekman披露中国学者发表CNS后一步登天，有些结果竟然无法重复，号召抵制Cell， Nature，和Science这三家被中国学者奉为神坛的刊物。这是历史的巧合，还是问题严重到了一定程度集中爆发？中国科技界当清醒了。科学探索的目的不是为了发表，成果也不取决于发表在什么刊物上，只要有货真价实的发明或创造，没有发表也能够被全人类所接收，并获得尊重。中国古代的许多发明就是这样，有时为了保密竟然是父子或母女之间代代相传的。我们用评价刊物的做法，评价科学家，这个思路是有问题的，是不利于科技进步的。中国近20年高分的SCI文章不少，但其干货恐怕连文革期间的十年不如，谁该脸红呢？院士？千人？万人？百人？当贞洁的科学被肮脏的资本强暴后，生下来的是什么怪胎？只有鬼知道。

以下信息来自刘实先生的博客：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102f5f6.html

附：
诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science期刊 精选
已有 1893 次阅读 2013-12-11 01:33 |个人分类:学术与学养|系统分类:海外观察|关键词:诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science

诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science期刊





今天海外许多媒体报道了下列新闻：今年诺贝尔医学奖获得者Randy Schekman 教授号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science这样的“奢侈”期刊，表示他的实验室将不再投稿这些被有些人认为是“顶尖”的学术期刊。他认为， 这些期刊误导学术界一味地追求发表所谓的抓眼球的“时髦”的科学成果，从而导致科学家放弃对重大科学问题的持久的思考与执着的研究， 这是对科研内界过程与基本目的的“颠倒”与“歪曲”，“科学发表的暴政(Tyranny)”必须打破， 使其不再阻碍科学的发展。近30年来，科学界流行起非常不良的“时尚”之风， 只要在Science、Nature之类高引期刊发表文章就能获得更大的利益：获得基金、晋升职务等，尽管如此，在欧美国家至少没有出现就此给作者发奖金的情况。因为有利可图，所以发表在Science、Nature之类期刊上论文造假的比例也随之加大，撤稿不少，还有许多造假尚未人发现呢。



其实，科学界不能被出版商牵着鼻子走，谋取经济利益永远是出版商唯一的目的。





Randy Schekman （中）出席今年诺贝尔发奖仪式



Randy Schekman 教授还特别提到中国有些研究机构与高校对Nature和Science杂志上发表文章的作者个人奖励30万人民币的政策，有些人每年发表论文所得的奖金甚至达到其工资的一半。他说，这样的“奖励制度”简直就是一种 “贿赂”(Bribes) 。个别人在Nature上发表一篇无人能重复其“结果”的短文而成为中国院士， 从此不仅享受副部级待遇，而且戴着“学术权威”的帽子横行学术界，成为什么都懂的万能牛人，看谁不顺眼，你从此就拿不到项目。Randy Schekman 教授说，打击学术造假的唯一办法就是重复其试验。没有重复性的结果就是假的。靠数据作假成为院士，这样的人应该清除出院士队伍。这位诺贝尔奖今年的“新科状元”对中国科技政策流行弊病可谓即时地当头棒喝,希望相关人士清醒脑袋。不得不承认，中国科技政策的某些弊病看样子已经开始扰乱国际学术准则，变得越来越令人反感了。



Randy Schekman 教授还批评了科教界常用的SCI影响因子，认为这样的指标“毒害”学术。他强调，科技论文的质量仅取决其内容，而不取决于发表在哪个期刊上。



Randy Schekman 教授的呼声能否唤醒两眼惺忪的科技界特别是中国的科技界？



不久前《Science》撤除一篇乱扔垃圾与暴力之间关系的研究论文。

How journals like Nature,Cell and Science are damaging science



Randy Schekman



Randy Schekman

Monday 9 December 2013 19.30 GMT



I am a scientist. Mine is aprofessional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it isdisfigured by inappropriate incentives. The prevailing structures of personalreputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow theflashiest work, not the best. Those of us who follow these incentives are beingentirely rational – I have followed them myself – but we do not always bestserve our profession's interests, let alone those of humanity and society.

We all know what distortingincentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues faceare not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publicationin prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science.

These luxury journals aresupposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research.Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as aproxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grantsand professorships. But the big journals' reputations are only partlywarranted. While they publish many outstanding papers, they do not publish onlyoutstanding papers. Neither are they the only publishers of outstandingresearch.

These journals aggressivelycurate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than tostimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who createlimited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so theyartificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brandsare then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor" – a score foreach journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequentresearch. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so betterjournals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing whichhas become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonusculture is to banking.

Replication is the only solution to scientific fraud

It is common, andencouraged by many journals, for research to be judged by the impact factor ofthe journal that publishes it. But as a journal's score is an average, it sayslittle about the quality of any individual piece of research. What is more, citationis sometimes, but not always, linked to quality. A paper can become highlycited because it is good science – or because it is eye-catching, provocativeor wrong. Luxury-journal editors know this, so they accept papers that willmake waves because they explore sexy subjects or make challenging claims. Thisinfluences the science that scientists do. It builds bubbles in fashionablefields where researchers can make the bold claims these journals want, whilediscouraging other important work, such as replication studies.

In extreme cases, the lureof the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute tothe escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent.Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting clonedhuman embryos, links between littering and violence, and the geneticprofiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that amicrobe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despiteoverwhelming scientific criticism.

There is a better way,through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody toread, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote. Born on the web, they canaccept all papers that meet quality standards, with no artificial caps. Manyare edited by working scientists, who can assess the worth of papers withoutregard for citations. As I know from my editorship of eLife,an open access journal funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes MedicalInstitute and the Max Planck Society, they are publishing world-class scienceevery week.

Funders and universities,too, have a role to play. They must tell the committees that decide on grantsand positions not to judge papers by where they are published. It is thequality of the science, not the journal's brand, that matters. Most importantlyof all, we scientists need to take action. Like many successful researchers, Ihave published in the big brands, including the papers that won me the Nobelprize for medicine, which I will be honoured to collect tomorrow. But nolonger. I have now committed my lab to avoiding luxury journals, and Iencourage others to do likewise.

Just as Wall Street needsto break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that isrational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science mustbreak the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better researchthat better serves science and society.







Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals


Randy Schekmansays his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as theydistort scientific process



Randy Schekman,centre, at a Nobel prize ceremony in Stockholm. Photograph: Rob Schoenbaum/ZumaPress/Corbis

Leadingacademic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a"tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner whohas declared a boycott on the publications.
Randy Schekman,a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicinethis year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would nolonger send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.
Schekman saidpressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers tocut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more importantwork. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not activescientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make asplash.
The prestige ofappearing in the major journals has led the Chinese Academy of Sciences to paysuccessful authors the equivalent of $30,000 (￡18,000). Some researchers madehalf of their income through such "bribes", Schekman said in aninterview.
Writing in the Guardian, Schekmanraises serious concerns over the journals' practices and calls on others in thescientific community to take action.
"I havepublished in the big brands, including papers that won me a Nobel prize. But nolonger," he writes. "Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold ofbonus culture, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals."
Schekman is theeditor of eLife, an online journal set up by the WellcomeTrust. Articles submitted to the journal – a competitor to Nature, Cell andScience – are discussed by reviewers who are working scientists and accepted ifall agree. The papers are free for anyone to read.
Schekmancriticises Nature, Cell and Science for artificially restricting the number ofpapers they accept, a policy he says stokes demand "like fashion designerswho create limited-edition handbags." He also attacks a widespread metriccalled an "impact factor", used by many top-tier journals in theirmarketing.
A journal'simpact factor is a measure of how often its papers are cited, and is used as aproxy for quality. But Schekman said it was "toxic influence" onscience that "introduced a distortion". He writes: "A paper canbecome highly cited because it is good science - or because it is eye-catching,provocative, or wrong."
Daniel Sirkis, a postdoc in Schekman's lab, saidmany scientists wasted a lot of time trying to get their work into Cell,Science and Nature. "It's true I could have a harder time getting my footin the door of certain elite institutions without papers in these journalsduring my postdoc, but I don't think I'd want to do science at a place that hadthis as one of their most important criteria for hiring anyway," he toldthe Guardian.
Sebastian Springer, a biochemist at JacobsUniversity in Bremen, who worked with Schekman at the University of California,Berkeley, said he agreed there were major problems in scientific publishing,but no better model yet existed. "The system is not meritocratic. Youdon't necessarily see the best papers published in those journals. The editorsare not professional scientists, they are journalists which isn't necessarilythe greatest problem, but they emphasise novelty over solid work," hesaid.
Springer saidit was not enough for individual scientists to take a stand. Scientists arehired and awarded grants and fellowships on the basis of which journals theypublish in. "The hiring committees all around the world need toacknowledge this issue," he said.
Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief at Nature, saidthe journal had worked with the scientific community for more than 140 yearsand the support it had from authors and reviewers was validation that it servedtheir needs.
"We selectresearch for publication in Nature on the basis of scientific significance.That in turn may lead to citation impact and media coverage, but Nature editorsaren't driven by those considerations, and couldn't predict them even if theywished to do so," he said.
"Theresearch community tends towards an over-reliance in assessing research by thejournal in which it appears, or the impact factor of that journal. In a surveyNature Publishing Group conducted this year of over 20,000 scientists, thethree most important factors in choosing a journal to submit to were: thereputation of the journal; the relevance of the journal content to theirdiscipline; and the journal's impact factor. My colleagues and I have expressedconcerns about over-reliance on impact factors many times over the years, bothin the pages of Nature and elsewhere."
Monica Bradford, executive editorat Science, said: "We have a large circulation and printing additionalpapers has a real economic cost … Our editorial staff is dedicated to ensuringa thorough and professional peer review upon which they determine which papersto select for inclusion in our journal. There is nothing artificial about theacceptance rate. It reflects the scope and mission of our journal."
Emilie Marcus,editor of Cell, said: "Since its launch nearly 40 years ago, Cell hasfocused on providing strong editorial vision, best-in-class author service withinformed and responsive professional editors, rapid and rigorous peer-reviewfrom leading academic researchers, and sophisticated production quality. Cell'sraison d'etre is to serve science and scientists and if we fail to offer valuefor both our authors and readers, the journal will not flourish; for us doingso is a founding principle, not a luxury."
• This articlewas amended on 10 December 2013 to include a response from Cell editor EmilieMarcus, which arrived after the initial publication deadline.