Comments on: Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers http://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/ Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:26:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1 By: bqsuvthttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7350 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:29:37 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7350 Nice one. Here’s another one that makes a similar point: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Science%20Talk%20Dialogue%20Vol%2018%20Fall%202003.pdf

]]>
By: Toby Whitehttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7349 Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:14:13 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7349 I suppose most of us just accept the fact that every abstract announces that the underlying study will cure cancer, stop global warming, unite physics, expose the central evils of capitalism, etc. — with varying emphasis and to varying extents. It’s actually quite helpful to us non-scientists, since it serves exactly the same function as the formal disclosure of conflicting economic interests. That is, it gives the reader a good indication, up front, of the direction and degree of possible bias and the quality of analysis to be expected from the contents. I don’t mean to be cynical — or at least not too cynical. A quick read on the direction and rate of spin is actually very helpful to the reader who is not intimately familiar with the field.

]]>
By: Pow Powhttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7348 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:34:54 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7348 Every researcher likes to believe that their research is “novel”. How many researchers would authoritatively claim that they are just repeating someone else’s work?.

]]>
By: Reviewer #3http://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7347 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:27:18 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7347 On the flip side, it is important for a researcher to explain how their results connect to the larger problem that the experiments are aiming to address. Where to draw the line between explaining relevance to larger issues and boasting is not always straightforward…

]]>
By: Jon Beckmannhttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7346 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:26:32 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7346 Hmmm, why is there spin, though? Ah, I forgot, one of the main criteria to get into a high profile journal is NOVELTY. That means, you need to argue your results are new. If they are new, it means you are the first researcher to report them. How is that bragging, if true?

]]>
By: michaelbriggshttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7345 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:24:28 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7345 In a perfect world papers would only be judged on their scientific content. But we do not live in a perfect world…
If submitting to a fancy journal, the only way it will even be sent out for review (assuming you are not famous or an ex-colleague of the editor) is if you spin and exaggerate the results, beginning with the cover-letter (which, after all, serves no other purpose than to allow the editors to make decisions about a paper without having to read it).

]]>
By: chiralityhttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7344 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:08:39 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7344 A good while ago, the American Chemical Society strongly discouraged the use of the words “novel” and “new” in titles of manuscripts submitted to its journals. Darn, these were my favorite words.

]]>
By: Bookerhttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7343 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:07:53 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7343 Klaus, I have to respectfully disagree with you and astroglia on this one – science papers seem to be devolving into mindless trumpet-blowing. I want detailed methods, proper analyses, and discussions of the findings, not someone telling me what I should think about their work.

]]>
By: ozes williamstrange666http://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7342 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:39:13 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7342 Climate Science suffers from this problem terribly.

]]>
By: astrogliahttp://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/22/researchers-stop-the-spin-and-boasting-in-articles-say-other-researchers/#comment-7341 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:38:03 +0000 http://www.retractionwatch.com/?p=10350#comment-7341 I’m with Klaus, that sort of boasting and attention to the big issues are needed to be convincing so that reviewers will hopefully agree that your study (or grant) has implications and is important and should be published. Whenever I have tried a less humble or grandiose approach I have been told that my story is “underwhelming” or “without impact” and it gets a low priority score. And a sentence or two of the kind raised here and all of a sudden my work is timely and important and publishing it or funding it is a much higher priority. Interesting points, but maybe it is not the authors that should be slapped on the wrist.

]]>