Comments on: Do peer review journals need a media code of conduct?

By: Bryony Ross

Bryony Ross — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:37:46 +0000

Andrew i totally agree, and having covered both the stories you refer to in your blog on SAFENANO found myself with very much the same issues. Publishing a piece pf news without substantial enough links to its source isn’t something i like to do, as it puts SAFENANO in a position in which it’s potentially vulnerable to being accused of incorrect reporting. Unfortunately this also means that in some cases I feel forced to make the decision that if i can’t access the original article source and the news source won’t tell me when the paper will become available (at least at abstract access level) to the wider public, i at times feel the need to put a disclaimer on my news item or even withold it totally in some cases – something which at the end of the day totally goes against our primary aim of sharing information. What the solution is i’m not sure, but i’d love to hear it if you ever find out!

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:39:31 +0000

I suspect you’re no more sleeping at the wheel than the rest of us

I must confess, I don’t always go to the source – but where a report piques my interest and seems to indicate a study is important, I do like to be able to read the original. And even when I don’t, I’d like to think someone, somewhere is giving the work some critical appraisal!

By: Maryse de la Giroday

Maryse de la Giroday — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:03:15 +0000

Hi Andrew! Thanks a lot for doing all this work trying to track down the articles. Frankly, I feel that I’ve been asleep at the wheel and not paying enough attention. For some reason, this practice reminds me of governments giving out executive summaries and news releases but not allowing ready access to detailed reports (unless you beg).

By: Nano magazine; quantum tamers; insight into Intel; science publicity hounds « FrogHeart

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:51:09 +0000

[...] had a little wake-up call this morning on reading one of Andrew Maynard’s recent posts (here) where he is excoriating the publicity practices of some peer-reviewed journals. He mentions two [...]

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:32:33 +0000

The difference between this blogger and a journalist is that they get paid

You’re right that most people never would go to to the source – or want to even – which is why high quality journalism (or blogging) is so important. But there is a world of difference between having the ability to check on the facts, and having to rely totally on someone else’s interpretation. The latter leads to a potentially unhealthy power imbalance.

By: simon evans

simon evans — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:28:16 +0000

…and what is the difference between a blogger and a journalist?
seriously though, essentially what this method means is that everyone has to rely on the journalists to do a reasonable job (read the paper and report it accurately!). In a way that is already the case for most people (who will never read the paper anyway), but it does seem odd that other scientists should have to wait. Of course I’m sure you could get hold of a paper if you really wanted to, from a friendly journalist perhaps, but that isn’t the point.
I think maybe you have identified multiple problems here: sadly press release journalism will not be solved by publishing the paper when the embargo is lifted!

By: Andrew Maynard

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:22:21 +0000

I think you’re right that some journals are copying behavior that’s common in other areas, although I would have hoped that the editors and press officers had a little more sense. The real danger here is that a new breakthrough could end up getting widespread coverage, but with the story based on a Press Officer’s interpretation rather than the science itself. And once a particular story has become established, it’s very hard to overturn.

As a case in point, several years ago there was a paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives on the impact of C-60 on the brains of largemouth bass (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/7021/abstract.html). An associated press release from the American Chemistry Society had the headline “Type of buckyball shown to cause brain damage in fish,” (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/acs-ob031904.php) even though the study didn’t show brain damage per se, and the lipid peroxidation observed was most likely not associated with the C-60 used in the study.

Even with access to the paper that was eventually published, it is still common to find articles referring to this paper as showing C-60 can cause brain damage in fish – a claim that is not supported by the literature. It’s an example of how an initial piece of misinformation can be incredibly tenacious in the media.

Making sure sources are available can help minimize this sort of misinformation – but preventing readers and researchers from evaluating studies for themselves is a sure fire way of increasing the number of science misunderstandings that gain a life of their own.

By: Joerg Heber

Joerg Heber — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:51:51 +0000

I agree with what you here. It seems to me that publishing open press releases without available backup of the work on which they are based can be rather misleading, particularly given that PRs are little more than a brief advertising of a more thorough (presumably) piece of work.

Though I don’t think the problem is rooted in the world of scientific journals only. How many products (eg electronic gadgets) get advertised, blogged about and commented on long before anyone can buy them…

One way to stop such unverifiable advertising is simply to ignore it.