Since when did peer review journals start to put press hits before published data?
Scientific peer review journals are a cornerstone of modern science – providing an authoritative repository of scientific discovery that researchers and others can examine, test and build upon. Publication in peer review journals is the primary route by which new science is made available to people, and the “gold standard” against which science coverage in the media is evaluated.
Yet over the past couple of months, I’ve come across two cases where journals were more interested in publicity than publication – releasing information to the media and the public on forthcoming publications before the papers were generally available. The result is media coverage that cannot be validated against the original research, and a dangerous shift in authority from scientists to journalists and press officers…
This cannot be good for balanced science reporting!
Back in August, the European Respiratory Journal sent out an embargoed press release on a potentially high profile paper associating nanoparticle exposure to seven cases of severe lung disease and two deaths in China. When the embargo was lifted, the study was covered in the media (including a suite of articles on 2020 Science) – but the paper remained unpublished.
Concerned that this story was being driven by the journal’s press office and journalists, with readers and researchers having no way to check the facts and assess the study for themselves, I contacted the press office. This is what I said in an email to them:
…I have written about the paper on my blog at https://2020science.org, and have been concerned that the link to the paper is still not live. As well as putting me (and journalists who have also linked to the paper) in an awkward position, it prevents the scientific community from evaluating the paper for themselves.
I will be posting a blog on this apparent disconnect on my blog very shortly. But before I do, I wanted to check whether the ERJ will in fact be posting the paper on-line asap. I also wanted to provide you with the chance to comment on the time delay between the press release and posting the article, before I say something in public.
Unfortunately, I was specifically asked not to quote the reply I got back from the journal. However, the gist of it was that journalists could access the paper, and the journal would respond more directly to my question… when they had time.
(And believe me, I fully appreciate the irony of not providing the original reply here in a post about not having access to source information!).
The good news in this case is that the journal did respond to my emails and eventually published the paper on-line – but only after pressure had been applied.
Then this morning I received notification of another paper which was preceded by its press release. Here’s the opening of the Eurekalert press release that was posted by Inderscience Publishers – publishers of the International Journal of Nanotechnology:
Nanotech protection
Current safety equipment may not be adequate for nanoprotection
Writing in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Nanotechnology, Canadian engineers suggest that research is needed into the risks associated with the growing field of nanotechnology manufacture so that appropriate protective equipment can be developed urgently.
Followed by
Dolez and colleagues suggest that as this area of manufacturing grows it would be prudent to develop adequate workplace protection sooner, rather than later. Indeed, those workers most likely to be exposed to nanomaterials will be working in cleaning, bagging and formulation activities as well as surface functionalisation of nanoparticles.
This is a potentially important paper – it questions the adequacy of current safety equipment when working with engineered nanomaterials, and concludes that more work is needed to ensure safe workplaces.
But if you want to know what the authors base their conclusions on, you’ll have to wait – unless you are a journalist that is, in which case you can request a pre-publication copy of the paper.
I emailed the journal this morning to find out when the paper will be available to non-journalists (including scientists and interested members of the public). The answer?
The issue should be published on 1 December 2009.
In other words, the only information most people will have access to on this study for the next six weeks will come from the journal’s press office, and from science writers!
These aren’t isolated cases. It seems that, in the push to survive the digital revolution, some peer review journals are putting publicity ahead of integrity – encouraging science reporting that cannot be verified against the source, and preventing readers from assessing the validity of the studies they read about.
At a time when the soundness of science coverage in old and new media is already under scrutiny, surely this type of behavior is tantamount to the scientific community shooting itself in the foot!
Not every journal is guilty of playing the publicity card. But to prevent the bad players from giving science reporting a bad name, perhaps it’s time for a peer review journal code of conduct that establishes principles of responsible behavior. Amongst those principles, I would suggest a commitment to the integrity of the scientific process, and an agreement not to put out media “teasers” ahead of publications.
The alternative is the spectacle of a once-respected tradition dissolving into disrespect, while further compromising the already-tenuous authority of science reporting.
And this cannot be good for science, or the society it aims to serve.
Postscript
I should be clear that I have no beef with embargoed press releases that are sent out ahead of a publication – as long as the respective paper is made generally available at the same time as the embargo is lifted. This approach – used by some journals – gives journalists the opportunity to digest new research and write informed pieces, without the pressure of being scooped by less thorough colleagues. And in many cases it strengthens the integrity of science reporting. What is unconscionable in my opinion though is issuing a statement or lifting a press release embargo without publishing the original study. This can surely only be a cynical move to increase publicity for the journal, rather than disseminating the science.
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.
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.
…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!
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.
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).
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!
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!
I drop a leave a response each time I especially enjoy a post on
a site or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
It’s a result of the fire displayed in the post I browsed. And on this post Do peer review journals need a media code of conduct?. I was moved enough to post a thought 🙂 I do have 2 questions for you if you do not mind. Is it simply me or do some of the responses come across as if they are left by brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you are writing at additional social sites, I’d like to follow everything fresh you have
to post. Would you make a list all of all your communal sites like your linkedin profile,
Facebook page or twitter feed?