美国国家公共电台 NPR Scientists Aim To Pull Peer Review Out Of The 17th Century

 

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

The technology that drives science forward accelerates all the time, but science communication - not so much. The basic process still holds many vestiges¹ from its early days - the 17th century, that is. NPR's Richard Harris reports on efforts to modernize² this critical part of the scientific enterprise.

RICHARD HARRIS, BYLINE³: When researchers studying the biology of disease make a discovery, it typically takes nine months for them to get the results published in a journal. One reason for that delay is it goes through a process of peer review that is both necessary and antiquated⁴. The fate of that paper rests on just two or three scientists who have been asked to review it and decide whether it's worthy⁵ of being published. Michael Eisen, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator⁶ at UC Berkeley, offers an online shopping analogy to illustrate⁷ how crazy that approach is.

MICHAEL EISEN: If the only thing Amazon ever published were the reviews of the first three people who bought a product, then we'd have a very ineffective system for knowing what was good and bad.

HARRIS: The scientific reviews may be carried out by someone with a personal axe⁸ to grind or who can't truly evaluate a study's methods or statistics. And to top it off, reviews are usually anonymous⁹ and kept secret by the journal.

EISEN: If you buy pen refills on Amazon, you get far more useful feedback about the benefits and deficits¹⁰ of a particular product than you do about a work of science that represents, you know, years and years of people's work and millions of dollars of public investment.

HARRIS: Eisen recently attended a meeting of biomedical researchers who want to find a way to modernize this process to make it more fitting for a world that now lives online and isn't so concerned about the price of paper stock for printing presses. Theo Bloom, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, BMJ, says step one is to untangle the reasons for peer review in the first place.

THEO BLOOM: Often, peer review is being asked to do two things. It's being asked to look at technical quality and to look at whether an article is suitable for a particular journal.

HARRIS: Bloom says peer review does a reasonable job of picking studies of interest to journals such as hers. But it actually does a poor job of improving the quality of the paper. Some years ago, for instance, scientists sent around papers with nine deliberate errors in them. Peer reviewers generally found just three.

Michael Lauer, a top official at the National Institutes of Health, told the meeting that one huge problem is that scientists often fail to ask a fundamental question before starting an experiment, which is how many people or animals should be included in a study. By the time a study like that is done and submitted for publication, it's too late.

MICHAEL LAUER: Peer review is not going to help. It doesn't matter how transparent¹¹ the peer review is. We're not going to be able to solve this problem.

HARRIS: Scientists at the meeting spent a lot of time focusing on the issue of transparency, how to make peer reviews and editors' responses available to anyone who wants to understand how a paper was evaluated and chosen for publication. Mike Eisen argues for doing far more than that. He says biomedical papers should be posted in public for anyone to see and for peer review to come later.

EISEN: What we want to see happen next is to allow the scientists who are reading papers as part of their regular process of reading the things that interest them or might be useful to them to review them.

HARRIS: And to post those reviews online, just as Amazon shoppers do today for pen refills. That would be far more informative¹² and useful. Most notably¹³, it would change the incentives¹⁵ for publication. Right now, scientists are rewarded for getting papers passed peer review in the top journals. That means attention-grabbing findings are valued over careful work. Eisen says his system of review before publication would flip¹⁶ those priorities.

EISEN: The fact that people are going to be reviewing and assessing the work for as long as it's useful to the community should provide a very strong incentive¹⁴ back to authors to try to produce work that is actually reproducible and durable¹⁷ rather than work that is just flashy and gets into the right journal.

HARRIS: Eisen and his colleagues are creating a system to allow peer review for papers posted online before publication. And they hope to unveil it this summer. Richard Harris, NPR News.

1 vestiges   

残余部分( vestige的名词复数 )； 遗迹； 痕迹； 毫不

参考例句：

• the last vestiges of the old colonial regime 旧殖民制度最后的残余
• These upright stones are the vestiges of some ancient religion. 这些竖立的石头是某种古代宗教的遗迹。

2 modernize   

vt.使现代化，使适应现代的需要

参考例句：

• It was their manifest failure to modernize the country's industries.他们使国家进行工业现代化，明显失败了。
• There is a pressing need to modernise our electoral system.我们的选举制度迫切需要现代化。

3 byline   

n.署名；v.署名

参考例句：

• His byline was absent as well.他的署名也不见了。
• We wish to thank the author of this article which carries no byline.我们要感谢这篇文章的那位没有署名的作者。

4 antiquated   

adj.陈旧的，过时的

参考例句：

• Many factories are so antiquated they are not worth saving.很多工厂过于陈旧落后，已不值得挽救。
• A train of antiquated coaches was waiting for us at the siding.一列陈旧的火车在侧线上等着我们。

5 worthy   

adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的

参考例句：

• I did not esteem him to be worthy of trust.我认为他不值得信赖。
• There occurred nothing that was worthy to be mentioned.没有值得一提的事发生。

6 investigator   

n.研究者，调查者，审查者

参考例句：

• He was a special investigator for the FBI.他是联邦调查局的特别调查员。
• The investigator was able to deduce the crime and find the criminal.调查者能够推出犯罪过程并锁定罪犯。

7 illustrate   

v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图

参考例句：

• The company's bank statements illustrate its success.这家公司的银行报表说明了它的成功。
• This diagram will illustrate what I mean.这个图表可说明我的意思。

8 axe   

n.斧子；v.用斧头砍，削减

参考例句：

• Be careful with that sharp axe.那把斧子很锋利，你要当心。
• The edge of this axe has turned.这把斧子卷了刃了。

9 anonymous   

adj.无名的；匿名的；无特色的

参考例句：

• Sending anonymous letters is a cowardly act.寄匿名信是懦夫的行为。
• The author wishes to remain anonymous.作者希望姓名不公开。

10 deficits   

n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 )；赤字；亏空；亏损

参考例句：

• The Ministry of Finance consistently overestimated its budget deficits. 财政部一贯高估预算赤字。 来自《简明英汉词典》
• Many of the world's farmers are also incurring economic deficits. 世界上许多农民还在遭受经济上的亏损。 来自辞典例句

11 transparent   

adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的

参考例句：

• The water is so transparent that we can see the fishes swimming.水清澈透明，可以看到鱼儿游来游去。
• The window glass is transparent.窗玻璃是透明的。

12 informative   

adj.提供资料的，增进知识的

参考例句：

• The adverts are not very informative.这些广告并没有包含太多有用信息。
• This intriguing book is both thoughtful and informative.这本引人入胜的书既有思想性又富知识性。

13 notably   

adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地

参考例句：

• Many students were absent,notably the monitor.许多学生缺席，特别是连班长也没来。
• A notably short,silver-haired man,he plays basketball with his staff several times a week.他个子明显较为矮小，一头银发，每周都会和他的员工一起打几次篮球。

14 incentive   

n.刺激；动力；鼓励；诱因；动机

参考例句：

• Money is still a major incentive in most occupations.在许多职业中，钱仍是主要的鼓励因素。
• He hasn't much incentive to work hard.他没有努力工作的动机。

15 incentives   

激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机

参考例句：

• tax incentives to encourage savings 鼓励储蓄的税收措施
• Furthermore, subsidies provide incentives only for investments in equipment. 更有甚者，提供津贴仅是为鼓励增添设备的投资。 来自英汉非文学 - 环境法 - 环境法

16 flip   

vt.快速翻动；轻抛；轻拍；n.轻抛；adj.轻浮的

参考例句：

• I had a quick flip through the book and it looked very interesting.我很快翻阅了一下那本书，看来似乎很有趣。
• Let's flip a coin to see who pays the bill.咱们来抛硬币决定谁付钱。

17 durable   

adj.持久的，耐久的

参考例句：

• This raincoat is made of very durable material.这件雨衣是用非常耐用的料子做的。
• They frequently require more major durable purchases.他们经常需要购买耐用消费品。