And this is why peer review is a joke.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

So a journal is a newspaper, now. Great.

Um, no. Not what I said. At all. Also not what the editor said.

[Kai]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

So a journal is a newspaper, now. Great.

Um, no. Not what I said. At all. Also not what the editor said.

Granted. It's also probably what the editor of Nature said when he published the Womenspace Futures story.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This was a perspective piece originally published in Medical Hypotheses, which was at the time not a peer reviewed journal.

I missed that in the original article.

So, what broke down, here?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

So a journal is a newspaper, now. Great.

Um, no. Not what I said. At all. Also not what the editor said.

Granted. It's also probably what the editor of Nature said when he published the Womenspace Futures story.

The Womanspace story had no place in any scientific journal. It was fiction, not a scientific paper, and it was blatantly sexist fiction.

I don't know what his motivation for publishing the study was, but what Romagnoli seems to be saying there is that regardless of the validity of the conclusion, the paper should not be withheld from publication based on having an unsavory premise unless the data or the method is bad. This is science... the idea is to present the available information and let the scientific community determine whether the conclusions drawn by the researcher are valid.

The fact that the researcher's agenda is antisocial should not in itself be a barrier to publication. Now, we all know that personalities and bias do weigh heavily in the peer journal world, but they shouldn't. They only criteria a paper should be judged by is whether the data is good or bad and whether it's presented clearly. Even if it's an article which claims that having gay parents directly causes children to grow up alcoholic chain-smoking white nationalists, if it presents its data clearly it should not be withheld from publication simply for being unsavory.

Not that every paper deserves publication, and journals should pick and choose the best articles for publication (if they are fortunate enough to have enough submissions to pick and choose from) but I see Romagnoli's point; if the data is good, it is his right to present it in his journal, and let the scientific community rebut the study, which I'm sure they will do in droves. Further, it will help to dispel the conspiracy nutjobs' claims that information is being suppressed.

Many people on the web seem to think that this paper shouldn't be published anywhere for any reason because it's antisocial. I personally think that's walking a little too close to a slippery slope for my comfort.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Romagnoli:

"Speculative conclusions are not a reason for rejection, provided they are correlated with the data presented,"

[Kai]

So I found the journal and the article. Or at least the abstract; I don't have access to the full article. http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ijae/article/view/10336

If the editors assert that the data presented actually allows for a speculative conclusion that HIV is, as they said in the abstract, "not a new killer virus", okay, I agree with you Nigel, let's test that. Does anyone here have access to this PDF? I've set a tweet out through #icanhazpdf, as well.


My general feeling about the realpolitik of the situation, is that IJAE editors published this paper to drive up controversial publicity for their journal. Reading the journal summary, and looking at some of the other papers, this is very far from the normal fare for this periodical. They normally publish articles on gross and fine anatomy and embryology of humans, as well as comparative anatomy and embryology. On that current issue page, the HIV article is completely out of place. And when you look at other issues, it's the same. As a example, this would be like having a paper on vertebrates with minimal connection to insects in an entomological journal.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So I found the journal and the article. Or at least the abstract; I don't have access to the full article. http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ijae/article/view/10336

If the editors assert that the data presented actually allows for a speculative conclusion that HIV is, as they said in the abstract, "not a new killer virus", okay, I agree with you Nigel, let's test that. Does anyone here have access to this PDF? I've set a tweet out through #icanhazpdf, as well.


My general feeling about the realpolitik of the situation, is that IJAE editors published this paper to drive up controversial publicity for their journal. Reading the journal summary, and looking at some of the other papers, this is very far from the normal fare for this periodical. They normally publish articles on gross and fine anatomy and embryology of humans, as well as comparative anatomy and embryology. On that current issue page, the HIV article is completely out of place. And when you look at other issues, it's the same. As a example, this would be like having a paper on vertebrates with minimal connection to insects in an entomological journal.

They don't have it at Countway Library, but they do have it at Simmons. I may be able to get you a copy tomorrow.

ETA: I don't have access to our lab's PubMed account anymore. I'll have to scan a physical copy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So I found the journal and the article. Or at least the abstract; I don't have access to the full article. http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ijae/article/view/10336

If the editors assert that the data presented actually allows for a speculative conclusion that HIV is, as they said in the abstract, "not a new killer virus", okay, I agree with you Nigel, let's test that. Does anyone here have access to this PDF? I've set a tweet out through #icanhazpdf, as well.


My general feeling about the realpolitik of the situation, is that IJAE editors published this paper to drive up controversial publicity for their journal. Reading the journal summary, and looking at some of the other papers, this is very far from the normal fare for this periodical. They normally publish articles on gross and fine anatomy and embryology of humans, as well as comparative anatomy and embryology. On that current issue page, the HIV article is completely out of place. And when you look at other issues, it's the same. As a example, this would be like having a paper on vertebrates with minimal connection to insects in an entomological journal.

You are probably right about the motivation for publishing this article. But that's sort of beside the point, unless it was pushed to publication despite bad data.

[Cain]

Obama going to Mars is a peer-reviewed theory.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Obama going to Mars is a peer-reviewed theory.

Reviewed by a peerdom of crackpots!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Obama going to Mars is a peer-reviewed theory.

Reviewed by a peerdom of crackpots!

Don't laugh too hard.

So was "abstinence only" education.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Obama going to Mars is a peer-reviewed theory.

Reviewed by a peerdom of crackpots!

Don't laugh too hard.

So was "abstinence only" education.

Good point.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Kai- simmons only has it in electronic form and access is restricted to faculty and students :/

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Kai- simmons only has it in electronic form and access is restricted to faculty and students :/

Restricted science.

Oh, America...How I love thee.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Its more of a subscription thing. Simmons is the subscriber and im a harvard employee.