Retrospective look at blog highlights of 2024: What happened next?

It's always interesting for a blogger to look back to see which posts have garnered most attention. In 2024 there were three standout items, my resignation from the Royal Society, an Open Letter about editorial failings at the journal Scientific Reports, and a guest post by René Aquarius about his experiences as a reviewer for MDPI. For each of these blogposts, it's interesting to consider not just the number of hits, but also the broader impact. Blogging is a great way to let off steam, but does it actually achieve anything?

Resignation from the Royal Society 

As I said at the time of writing the post, I don't expect my resignation to change much at the Royal Society, but I was surprised at the amount of interest in the matter. The story was picked up by national media (e.g. here and here), and even got covered in France and the Netherlands. I had anticipated I might be attacked by a swarm of trolls, but there was no more than a handful of rude emails, saying the Royal Society was better off without me. What was more remarkable was the outpouring of positive reactions. My inbox was swamped with people thanking me for taking this step - not just academics, but people from all walks of life. It's customary when elected to the Royal Society for colleagues to send congratulatory emails: the number of congratulations I received for resigning was about five times as many as I had for being elected. I felt I had struck a chord with many people who were fed up with unsuitable individuals being honoured. British people in particular were outraged that the Royal Society was honouring someone who was spreading misinformation with the apparent aim of undermining our democracy.

I've seen only one serious attempt to challenge the arguments in my blogpost - by Toby Young in the Spectator. I can imagine that the comms team at the Royal Society may not have been overjoyed at his main line of argument, which was to say that there had been many Fellows of the Royal Society with rebarbative opinions who hadn't been thrown out, so why should they start now? He described me as a left-wing Torquemada, which I rather enjoyed, except that his implication was that my objections to Musk were political. Had he read my blogpost, he'd see that politics didn't come into it - it is the lack of scientific integrity that is the issue.

As a delightful twist to the story, Toby Young, who is notorious for his foul-mouthed comments on women and disabled people, has just been appointed to the House of Lords, showing that the Royal Society is not alone among the British establishment in honouring those who represent the antithesis of their core values. I can only assume that Kemi Badenoch, who was responsible for his elevation, did it to own the libs.

Open letter regarding Scientific Reports

This letter, cosigned by 22 scientific sleuths, noted that laughably awful papers were getting published in the Springer Nature journal Scientific Reports, which is generally regarded as a serious journal. It looked to us as if the journal was being infiltrated by paper mills who were using it as an outlet for fraudulent or low quality work. For this to happen, there need to be editors who are either turning a blind eye to such articles, or were actively working with a paper mill to accommodate them. A quick analysis of the editors listed on the journal website turned up 28 who had records on PubPeer indicative of involvement in research misconduct.

So what has happened since? We received a reply from Chris Graf, the Research Integrity Director at Springer Nature, thanking us for our letter and emphasising the extent to which the publisher was putting resources into tackling research fraud and paper mills. The article that had sparked off the Open Letter was retracted fairly promptly.

But when I rechecked the Editorial Board list today, 26 the 28 editors we'd listed were still in position - even though we'd given links to PubPeer entries that specified problematic behaviours of all of them. The two who are no longer listed are Ilyas Khan, and Achyut Shankar. I have no idea whether their disappearance from editorial roles at Scientific Reports has anything to do with the Open Letter. (Rule 1 of sleuthing: don't expect anyone in power to tell you if they have acted on information you provided).

And a final wrinkle to the story: a fellow sleuth told me about another editor linked to paper mills, Masoud Afrand, who had not been included in our list. He had actually been removed from the list of editors in March 2022, but then reappeared at some point in the summer of 2024 (as verified by the Wayback Machine). The Editor-in-Chief, Rafal Marszalek, explained this as a "clerical error". In email correspondence I pointed out to him that this was a pretty odd kind of clerical error, and that it did nothing to assuage growing concerns that there may be someone at a senior level at Scientific Reports who was actively working with paper millers.  I did not get a reply.

My experience as a reviewer for MDPI: guest post by René Aquarius

In this post, René describes the fate of a paper that he agreed to review for the Journal of Clinical Medicine, published by MDPI. The paper had numerous methodological flaws, including lack of a control group and discrepancies between the registered protocol and the final study, and René recommended rejection. What then followed was a bizarre series of exchanges with MDPI editors, who encouraged resubmission by the authors, then attempted to block René from re-reviewing the paper, after he'd agreed to do so. Eventually the paper was transferred to  another MDPI journal, Geriatrics, where he was again asked to review it. When he pointed out that the paper was largely unchanged from the original submission, it was withdrawn - but he then found it published a few weeks later in yet another MDPI journal.

This blogpost attracted a lot of comments, not least from people who had had similar experiences with MDPI. I have to say that these experiences, coupled with other evidence such as this and this make me very dubious about standards of peer review at MDPI. The impression is that hard-pressed editorial staff are expected to ensure peer review of submissions is achieved in 2-3 weeks, and they accordingly come to rely on anyone who will do a speedy job, without regard for quality. Indeed, high-quality reviews that raise difficult issues are problematic for them, because they will slow up the process. Accordingly these are sidelined or quietly forgotten about, in favour of minimalist 'reviews' such as those you can see here in reviews 1, 3 and 4.

Will anything change? Hopefully, René's post has helped raise awareness of the problematic aspects of peer review at MDPI journals. I doubt the publisher will do anything to change their peer review model unless the reputational damage from such revelations starts to hit their bottom line. Interestingly, in my last post of 2024, I noted that just before the Christmas break, Finland's Publication Forum (JUFO) downgraded the status of 187 MDPI journals in their index, a move that will disincentivize Finnish researchers from publishing there. However, a day later, MDPI announced that it had secured a national publishing agreement with ZB Med, which offered substantial discounts to authors from over 100 German Universities.

Epilogue

In each of these cases, we can see that a blogpost has raised the profile of an issue that is of relevance to academic scientists. Concrete impacts are harder to demonstrate - where changes happen, it's not clear if they are related to the blogpost, or just coincidental. And for most topics, it's a case of two steps forward and one step back, at best. But if I've learned one thing from my many years writing about such things, it's that you can't trust the people in positions of power to actually do the right thing unless they are prodded repeatedly and publicly (and sometimes not even then). So I hope to continue blogging through 2025, even though it may at times seem futile.

Happy New Year, and Illegitimi non carborundum.

Comments are moderated. Those that are in scope and from an identified person will be published after a delay. 

Finland vs. Germany: the case of MDPI

It's been an odd week for the academic publisher MDPI. On 16th December, Finland's Publication Forum (known as JUFO) announced that from January 2025 it was downgrading its classification of 271 open access journals to the lowest level, zero. By my calculations, this includes 187 journals from MDPI and 82 from Frontiers, plus 2 others. This is likely to deter Finnish researchers from submitting work to these journals, as the rating indicates they are of low quality. As explained in an article in the Times Higher Education, JUFO justified its decision on the grounds that these journals “aim to increase the number of publications with the minimum time spend for editorial work and quality assessment”. 

Then the very next day, 17th December, MDPI announced that it had secured a national publishing agreement with ZB Med, which offered substantial discounts to authors from over 100 German Universities publishing in MDPI journals. On Bluesky, this news was not greeted with the universal joy that ZB Med might have anticipated, with comments such as "an embarrassment", "shocking", and "a catastrophe".

To understand the background, it's worth reading a thread on Bluesky by Mark Hanson, one of the authors of a landmark paper entitled "The Strain on Scientific Publishing". This article showed that MDPI and Frontiers stand out from other publishers in terms of having an exponential growth in number of papers published in recent years, a massive shift to special issues as a vehicle for this increase, and a sharp drop in publication lag from 2016 to 2022.

In their annual report for 2023, MDPI described annualised publication growth of 20.4%. They stated that they have over 295,693 academic editors on editorial boards, and a median lag of 17 days from receipt of a paper to the first editorial decision and 6 weeks from submission to publication. It's not clear whether the 17 day figure includes desk rejections, but even if it does, this is remarkably fast. Of course, you could argue (and I'm sure the publishers will argue) that if you are publishing a lot more and doing it faster, you are just being efficient. However, an alternative view, and one that is apparently held by JUFO, is that this speedy processing goes hand in hand with poor editorial quality control.

The problem here is that anyone who has worked as a journal editor knows that, while a 17 day turnaround might be a good goal to aim for, it is generally not feasible. There is a limited pool of experts who can do a thorough peer review, and often one has to ask as many as 20 people to do a review in order to achieve 2 or 3 reviews. So it can take at least a couple of weeks to secure reviewers, and then it is likely to be another couple of weeks before all reviewers have completed a comprehensive review. Given these constraints, most editors would be happy if they could achieve a median time to first decision of 34 days - i.e. double that reported by MDPI. So the sheer speed of decision making - regarded by MDPI as a selling point for authors - is a red flag.

It seems that speed is achieved by adopting a rather unorthodox process of assigning peer reviewers, where the involvement of an academic editor is optional: "At least two review reports are collected for each submitted article. The academic editor can suggest reviewers during pre-check. Alternatively, MDPI editorial staff will use qualified Editorial Board members, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers identified by web searches for related articles." The impression is that, in order to meet targets, editorial staff will select peer reviewers who can be relied upon to respond immediately to requests to review.

A guest post on this blog by René Aquarius supported these suspicions and further suggested that reviewers who are critical may be sidelined. After writing an initial negative review, René had promptly agreed to review a revision of a paper, but was then told his review was not needed - this is quite remarkable, given that most editors would be delighted if a competent reviewer agreed to do a timely re-review. It's worth looking not just at René's blogpost but also the comments from others, which indicate his experience is not unique.

A further issue concerns the fate of papers receiving negative reviews. René found that the paper he had rejected popped up as a new submission in another MDPI journal, and after negative reviews there, it was published in a third journal. This raises questions about MDPI's reported rejection rate of around 50%. If each of these resubmissions was counted as a new submission, the rejection rate would appear to be 66%, but given that the same paper was recycled from journal to journal before eventual acceptance, the actual rate was 0%. 

One good thing about MDPI is that it gives authors the option of making peer review open. However, analysis of published peer reviews further dents confidence in the rigour of the peer review process. A commentary in Science covering the work of Maria Ángeles Oviedo García noted how some MDPI peer reviews contained repetitive phrases that suggested they were generated by a template. They were superficial and did not engage seriously with the content of the article. In some cases the reviewer freely admitted a lack of expertise in the topic of the article, and in others, there was evidence of coercive citation (i.e., authors being told to cite the work of a specific individual, sometimes the editor).

Comments on Reddit cannot, of course, be treated as hard evidence, but they raise further questions about the peer review process at MDPI. Several commenters described having recommended rejection as a peer reviewer only to find that the paper was published without their comments. If negative peer review comments are selectively suppressed in the public record, this would be a serious breach of ethical standards by the publisher.

Lack of competent peer review and/or editorial malpractice is also suggested by the publication of papers in MDPI that fall well below the threshold of acceptable science. Of course, quality judgements are subjective, and it's common for researchers to complain "How did this get past peer review?" But in the case of MDPI journals, one finds articles that are so poor that they suggest the editor was either corrupt or asleep on the job. I have covered some examples in previous blogposts, here, and here.

The Finns are not alone in being concerned about research quality in MDPI journals. The Swiss National Science Foundation did not mention specific publishers by name, but in November 2023 they withdrew funding for articles published in special issues. Since 2023, the Directory of Open Access Journals has withdrawn 19 MDPI journals from its index for "Not adhering to best practice". Details are not provided, but these tend to be journals where guest editors have used special issues to publish a high volume of articles by themselves and close collaborators - another red flag for scientific quality. Yet another issue is citation manipulation, where editors or peer reviewers demand inclusion of specific references in a revision of an article in order to boost their own citation count. In February 2024, China released its latest Early Warning List of journals that are deemed to be "untrustworthy, predatory or not serving the Chinese research community’s interests". This included four MDPI journals listed for citation manipulation.

A final red flag about MDPI is that it seems remarkably averse to retracting articles. Hindawi publishing, which was bought by Wiley in 2021, was heavily criticised for allowing a flood of paper-milled articles to be published, but it did subsequently retract over 13,000 of them (just under 5% of 267K articles), before the closure of the brand. A search on Web of Science for documents classified as "retracted publication" or "retraction" and published by "MDPI or MDPI Ag" turned up a mere 582 retractions since 2010, which amounts to 0.04% of the 1.4 million articles listed on the database.

I've heard various arguments against JUFO's action, such as: many papers published in MDPI journals are fine; you should judge an article by its content, not where it is published; authors should be free to prefer speed over scrutiny if they wish. The reason why I support JUFO, and think ZB Med is rash to sign an agreement, is because if the peer review process is not managed by experienced and respected academic editors with specialist subject knowledge, then we need to consider the impact, not just on individual authors, but on the scientific literature as a whole. If we allow trivia, fatally flawed studies or pseudoscience to be represented as "peer-reviewed" this contaminates the research literature, with adverse consequences for everyone.

Why I have resigned from the Royal Society

The Royal Society is a venerable institution founded in 1660, whose original members included such eminent men as Christopher Wren, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. It promotes science in many ways: administering grants, advising government, holding meetings and lectures, and publishing expert reports on scientific matters of public importance.  

There are currently around 1,800 Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society, all elected through a stringent and highly competitive process which includes nomination by two Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS), detailed scrutiny of the candidate's achievements and publications, reports by referees, and consideration by a committee of experts in their broad area of research.  Although most Fellows are elected on the basis of their scientific contributions, others are nominated on the basis of "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication".

For many scientists, election to the Royal Society is the pinnacle of their scientific career. It establishes that their achievements are recognised as exceptional, and the title FRS brings immediate respect from colleagues. Of course, things do not always work out as they should. Some Fellows may turn out to have published fraudulent work, or go insane and start promoting crackpot ideas. Although there are procedures that allow a fellow to be expelled from the Royal Society, I have been told this has not happened for over 150 years. It seems that election as a Fellow of the Royal Society, like loss of virginity, is something that can't readily be reversed.

This brings us, then, to the case of Elon Musk, who was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2018 on the basis of his technological achievements, notably in space travel and electrical vehicle development. Unfortunately, since that time, his interests have extended to using social media for political propaganda, while at the same time battling what he sees as "woke mind virus" and attacks on free speech. Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion on issues such as climate change and medicine, over the past year or two, he's started promoting alternative ideas.   

In summer of 2024, a number of FRSs became concerned at how Musk was using his social media platform (previously Twitter, now termed X) to stir up racial unrest and anti-government sentiment in the UK. Notable tweets by him from this period included incendiary comments and frank misinformation, as documented in this Guardian article. 

This led to a number of Fellows expressing dismay that Musk had been elected. There was no formal consultation of the Fellowship but via informal email contacts, a group of 74 Fellows formulated a letter of concern that was sent in early August to the President of the Royal Society, raising doubts as to whether he was "a fit and proper person to hold the considerable honour of being a Fellow of the Royal Society". The letter specifically mentioned the way Musk had used his platform on X to make unjustified and divisive statements that served to inflame right-wing thuggery and racist violence in the UK. 

Somebody (not me!) leaked the letter to the Guardian, who ran a story about it on 23rd August.

I gather that at this point the Royal Society Council opted to consult a top lawyer to determine whether Musk's behaviour breached their Code of Conduct. The problem with this course of action is that if you are uncertain about doing something that seems morally right but may have consequences, then it is easy to find a lawyer who will advise against doing it. That's just how lawyers work. They're paid to rescue people from ethical impulses that may get them into trouble. And, sure enough, the lawyer determined that Musk hadn't breached the Code of Conduct. If you want to see if you agree, you can find the Code of Conduct here.

Many of the signatories of the letter, including me, were unhappy with this response. We set about assembling further evidence of behaviours incompatible with the Code of Conduct. There is a lot of material, which can be broadly divided into two categories, depending on whether it relates to "Scientific conduct" or "Principles".  

On Scientific conduct, the most relevant points from the Code of Conduct are:

2.6. Fellows and Foreign Members shall carry out their scientific research with regard to the Society's statement on research integrity and to the highest standards. 

2.10. Fellows and Foreign Members shall treat all individuals in the scientific enterprise collegially and with courtesy, including supervisors, colleagues, other Society Fellows and Foreign Members, Society staff, students and other early‐career colleagues, technical and clerical staff, and interested members of the public. 

2.11. Fellows and Foreign Members shall not engage in any form of discrimination, harassment, or bullying.

Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk. Fauci was not a Fellow at the time these comments were made, but that should not matter given the scope of the statement is "individuals in the scientific community". This incident was covered by CBS News.

Now that the US election is over, Musk seems emboldened to ramp up his attacks. On 19th November 2024, he retweeted this to his millions of followers, followed by a compilation of attacks on Fauci on 21st November,

Neuralink

There are also questions about the management of Musk's research project, Neuralink, which involves developing a brain-computer interface to help people who are paralysed. While this is clearly a worthy goal, his approach to conducting research is characterised by refusal to let anyone interfere with how he does things. This has led to accusations of failure to adhere to regulatory procedures for Good Laboratory Practice. For instance, consider these quotes from this article: 

'I think what concerns people is that Neuralink could be cutting corners, and so far nobody has stopped them,' says Nick Ramsey, a clinical neuroscientist at University Medical Center Utrecht, in the Netherlands.  There’s an incredible push by Neuralink to bypass the conventional research world, and there’s little interaction with academics, as if they think that we’re on the wrong track—that we’re inching forward while they want to leap years forward.

In response to Musk's claim that no monkey had died because of Neuralink, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine wrote to the SEC, claiming Musk’s comments were false. The group said it had obtained veterinary records from Neuralink’s experiments showing that at least 12 young, healthy monkeys were euthanized as a result of problems with Neuralink’s implant. The group alleged that Musk’s comments are misleading investors, and urged SEC regulators to investigate Musk and Neuralink for securities fraud.

The problems with Neuralink do not stop with the ethics of the animals and the secrecy surrounding them. In a piece in Nature, various scientists were interviewed about the first human trial that was conducted earlier this year. The main concern was lack of transparency. Human trials are usually recorded in clinical.trials.gov, which was set up precisely to make it easier to track if studies had followed a protocol. Musk did not do this. His approach to the human trials again reflects his distaste for any regulations. But the regulations are there for a purpose, and one would expect a Fellow of the Royal Society to abide by them; otherwise we end up with scandals such as Theranos or the stem cell experiments by Macchiarini and Birchall. The ethics of this kind of trial also needs careful handling, especially in terms of the patient's understanding of possible adverse effects, their expectations of benefits, and the undertaking of researchers to provide long-term support for the prosthesis.

If we turn to the more general issues that come under Principles, then the Code of Conduct states: 

Fellows and Foreign Members shall not act or fail to act in any way which would undermine the Society's mission or bring the Society into disrepute.

 Here are some examples that I would regard as contrary to the Society's mission.

Promoting vaccine hesitation

The Royal Society has done good work promoting public understanding of vaccines, as with this blogpost by Charles Bangham FRS. In contrast, as described here, Musk has promoted vaccine conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine views on his platform. This Tweet had 85 million views:

Downplaying the climate emergency

In 2023 Musk played down the seriousness of climate change, and 2024 participated in a bizarre interview with Donald Trump, which dismayed climate experts. Among the commenters was Michael Mann, who said “It is sad that Elon Musk has become a climate change denier, but that’s what he is. He’s literally denying what the science has to say here.” Mann was elected as a Foreign Member of the Royal Society in 2024.

Spreading deep fakes and misinformation on X

As recently as 2022, the Royal Society published a report in which Frank Kelly (FRS) noted the high priority that the Royal Society gives to accurate scientific communication:

The Royal Society’s mission since it was established in 1660 has been to promote science for the benefit of humanity, and a major strand of that is to communicate accurately. But false information is interfering with that goal. It is accused of fuelling mistrust in vaccines, confusing discussions about tackling the climate crisis and influencing the debate about genetically modified crops. 

Earlier this month, Martin McKee wrote in the British Medical Journal:

 Musk’s reason for buying Twitter was to influence the social discourse. And influence he did—by using his enormous platform (203 million followers) to endorse Trump, spread disinformation about voter fraud and deep fakes of Kamala Harris, and amplify conspiracy theories about everything from vaccines to race replacement theory to misogyny.

The most recent development is the announcement that Musk is to be co-director of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE, an allusion to the cryptocurrency Dogecoin) in the Trump Administration, with a brief to cut waste and bureaucracy. The future for US science is starting to look bleak, with Musk being given unfettered powers to cut budgets to NIH and NASA, among others.  This tweet, which he endorsed, indicates that rather than using objective evidence, the cuts will fall on those who have criticized Trump, who will find bowdlerized summaries of their work used to generate public outrage. The tweet reads:  "Here’s what the U.S. Government wasted $900 Billion of your tax dollars on in 2023. The Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) will fix this. America deserves leaders that prioritize sensible spending" before presenting a chart listing items for cuts, with unsourced descriptions of expenditure, including:

• Dr Fauci's monkey business on NIH's "monkey island":   $33,200,000 
• NIH's meth-head monkeys:  portion of $12,000,000 
• Dr Fauci's transgender monkey study: $477,121

I'm sad to say I agree with Alex Wild, Curator of Entomology at University of Texas Austin, who wrote a few days ago: "I hope federally funded scientists are preparing for large scale, bad faith attacks by Musk and his troll army.  It’s pretty clear the DOGE operation is going to take snippets of grant proposals and papers, present them out of context, and direct weaponized harassment of individual people."

What next?  

I've been told that in the light of the evolving situation, the Royal Society Council will look again at the case of Elon Musk. In conversations I have had with them, they emphasise that they must adhere to their own procedures, which are specified in the Statutes, and which involve a whole series of stages of legal scrutiny, committee evaluation, discussion with the Fellow in question, and ultimately a vote from the Fellowship, before a Fellow or Foreign Member could be expelled. While I agree that if you have a set of rules you should stick to them, I find the fact that nobody has been expelled for over 150 years telling. It does suggest that the Statutes are worded so that it is virtually impossible to do anything about Fellows who breach the Code of Conduct. In effect the Statutes serve a purpose of protecting the Royal Society from ever having to take action against one of its Fellows.

In the course of investigating this blogpost, I've become intimately familiar with the Code of Conduct, which requires me to "treat all individuals in the scientific enterprise collegially and with courtesy, including ... foreign Members". I'm not willing to treat Elon Musk "collegially and with courtesy". Any pleasure I may take in the distinction of the honour of an FRS is diminished by the fact it is shared with someone who appears to be modeling himself on a Bond villain, a man who has immeasurable wealth and power which he will use to threaten scientists who disagree with him. Accordingly, last week I resigned my FRS. I don't do this in the expectation of having any impact: in the context of over 350 years of Royal Society history, this is just a blip. I just feel far more comfortable to be dissociated from an institution that continues to honour this disreputable man.

Note: Comments will be accepted if they are by a named individual, civil, and on topic. They are moderated and there may be a delay before they appear online. 

 

PS. 1st Dec 2024. It seems many people did not read this far and I have deleted a lot of anonymous comments.  I will close this post to comments now, as I think nobody has anything new to say and I don't think anything will be gained by more to and fro.  Thanks for all the support - which outnumbers criticism by about 20:1.

I don't care about journal impact factors but I do care about visibility

There's been a fair bit of discussion about Clarivate's decision to pause inclusion of eLife publications on the Science Citation Index (e.g. on Research Professional).  What I find exasperating is that most of the discussion focuses on a single consequence - loss of eLife's impact factor.  For authors, there are graver consequences.   

I've reviewed for eLife but never published there; however, I have published a lot in Wellcome Open Research, which is another journal that aimed to disrupt the traditional publishing model, and has some similarities with eLife.  Wellcome Open Research has never been included in Science Citation Index, despite the fact that it uses peer review.  Wellcome Open Research has an unconventional model whereby submitted papers are immediately published, as a kind of pre-print prior to peer review, and then updated after peer review.  It is true that some papers don't get sufficient approval to proceed to the peer-reviewed stage; the distinction between those that do and do not pass peer review is clearly flagged on the article.  In addition to peer review, Wellcome Open Research maintains some quality control by limiting eligibility to researchers funded by Wellcome.  

 

When Wellcome Open Research started up, all Wellcome-funded researchers were encouraged to publish there.  As someone committed to Open Research, this seemed a great idea.  There were no publication charges, and everything was open: access to the publication, data, and peer review. Peer reviewers even get DOIs for their reviews, some of which are worth citing in their own right.  I was increasingly adopting open practices, and I think some of my best peer-reviewed work is published there. 

 

I was shocked when I discovered that the journal wasn't included in Web of Science. I remember preparing a progress report for Wellcome and using Web of Science to check I hadn't omitted any publications.  I was puzzled that I seemed to have published far less than I remembered. Then it became clear: everything in Wellcome Open Research was missing. 

 

I was on the Advisory Board for Wellcome Open Research at the time, and raised this with them. They were shocked that I was upset.  "We thought you of all people didn't care about impact factors", they said. This, of course, was true. But I did care a lot about my work being visible.  I was also aware that any WOS-based H-index would exclude all the papers listed below: not a big deal for me, but potentially harmful to junior authors.  

 

The reply I got was similar to the argument being made by eLife  - well, the articles are indexed in Google Scholar and PubMed.  That was really little consolation to me, given that I had relied heavily on Web of Science in my own literature searches, believing that it screened out dodgy journals. (This belief turns out to be false - there are many journals featured in WoS that are very low quality, which just rubs salt into the wound).  

 

I have some criticisms of eLife's publishing model, but I would like them to succeed. We urgently need alternatives to the traditional journal model operated by the big commercial publishers.  Their response to the open access movement has been to monetise it, with catastrophic consequences for science, as an unlimited supply of shoddy and fake work gets published - often in journals that are indexed in Web of Science.

 

I agree that we need an index of published academic work that has some quality control.  Whether alternatives like OpenAlex will do the job remains to be seen. 

 

Papers that aren't indexed on Web of Science

Bishop, D. V. M., & Bates, T. C. (2020). Heritability of language laterality assessed by functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound: A twin study. Wellcome Open Research, 4, 161. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15524.3

Bishop, D. V. M., Brookman-Byrne, A., Gratton, N., Gray, E., Holt, G., Morgan, L., Morris, S., Paine, E., Thornton, H., & Thompson, P. A. (2019). Language phenotypes in children with sex chromosome trisomies. Wellcome Open Research, 3, 143. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14904.2

Bishop, D. V. M., Grabitz, C. R., Harte, S. C., Watkins, K. E., Sasaki, M., Gutierrez-Sigut, E., MacSweeney, M., Woodhead, Z. V. J., & Payne, H. (2021). Cerebral lateralisation of first and second languages in bilinguals assessed using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Wellcome Open Research, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.9869.2

Frizelle, P., Thompson, P. A., Duta, M., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). The understanding of complex syntax in children with Down syndrome. Wellcome Open Research, 3, 140. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14861.2

Newbury, D. F., Simpson, N. H., Thompson, P. A., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2018). Stage 1 Registered Report: Variation in neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with sex chromosome trisomies: protocol for a test of the double hit hypothesis. Wellcome Open Research, 3, 10. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13828.2

Newbury, D. F., Simpson, N. H., Thompson, P. A., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2021). Stage 2 Registered Report: Variation in neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with sex chromosome trisomies: testing the double hit hypothesis. Wellcome Open Research, 3, 85. 

https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14677.4

Pritchard, V. E., Malone, S. A., Burgoyne, K., Heron-Delaney, M., Bishop, D. V. M., & Hulme, C. (2019). Stage 2 Registered Report: There is no appreciable relationship between strength of hand preference and language ability in 6- to 7-year-old children. Wellcome Open Research, 4, 81. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15254.1

Thompson, P. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Eising, E., Fisher, S. E., & Newbury, D. F. (2020). Generalized Structured Component Analysis in candidate gene association studies: Applications and limitations. Wellcome Open Research, 4, 142. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15396.2

Wilson, A. C., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). ‘If you catch my drift...’: Ability to infer implied meaning is distinct from vocabulary and grammar skills. Wellcome Open Research, 4, 68. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15210.3

Wilson, A. C., King, J., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). Autism and social anxiety in children with sex chromosome trisomies: An observational study. Wellcome Open Research, 4, 32. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15095.2

Woodhead, Z. V. J., Rutherford, H. A., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2020). Measurement of language laterality using functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound: A comparison of different tasks. Wellcome Open Research, 3, 104. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14720.3

 

 

 

What is going on at the Journal of Psycholinguistic Research?

Last week this blog focussed on problems affecting Scientific Reports, a mega-journal published by Springer Nature. This week I look at a journal at the opposite end of the spectrum, the Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (JPR), a small, specialist journal which has published just 2187 papers since it was founded in 1971. This is fewer than Scientific Reports publishes in one year. It was brought to my attention by Anna Abalkina because it shows every sign of having been targeted by one or more Eastern European paper mills.

Now, this was really surprising to me. JPR was founded in 1971 by Robert Rieber, whose obituaries in the New York Times  and the American Psychologist confirm he had a distinguished career (though both misnamed JPR!). The Advisory and Editorial boards of the journal are peppered with names of famous linguists and psychologists, starting with Noam Chomsky. So there is a sense that if this can happen to JPR, no journal is safe.

Coincidentally, last week Anna and I submitted revisions for a commentary on paper mills coauthored with Pawel Matusz. (You can read the preprint here). Pawel is editor of the journal Mind, Brain & Education (MBE), which experienced an attack by the Tanu.pro paper mill involving papers published in 2022-3. In the commentary, we discussed characteristics of the paper mill, which are rather distinctive and quite different from what is seen in basic biomedical or physical sciences. A striking feature is that the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) is used, but in a clueless fashion, with these headings being inserted in what is otherwise a rambling and discursive piece of text, that typically has little or no empirical content. Insofar as there are any methods described, they don't occur in the methods section, and they are too vague for the research to be replicable.

Reading these papers rapidly turns my brain to mush, but in the interest of public service I did wade through five of them and left comments on Pubpeer:  

Yeleussizkyzy, M., Zhiyenbayeva, N., Ushatikova, I. et al. E-Learning and Flipped Classroom in Inclusive Education: The Case of Students with the Psychopathology of Language and Cognition. J Psycholinguist Res 52, 2721–2742 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10015-y  

https://pubpeer.com/publications/7C9B4538A07EE8777082D63B2944B9 

Snezhko, Z., Yersultanova, G., Spichak, V. et al. Effects of Bilingualism on Students’ Linguistic Education: Specifics of Teaching Phonetics and Lexicology. J Psycholinguist Res 52, 2693–2720 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10016-x

https://pubpeer.com/publications/09F57870A7D20BF5F77C53F414449F 

Nurakenova, A., Nagymzhanova, K. A Study of Psychological Features Related to Creative Thinking Styles of University Students. J Psycholinguist Res 53, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10042-3

https://pubpeer.com/publications/A1FB870AD77F1D07D34B9BF9AEEFF3 

Auganbayeva, M., Turguntayeva, G., Anafinova, M. et al.Linguacultural and Cognitive Peculiarities of Linguistic Universals. J Psycholinguist Res 53, 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10050-3

https://pubpeer.com/publications/06DD63C96B4D7C74DAC8AB72F18A34 

Shalkarbek, A., Kalybayeva, K., Shaharman, G. et al. Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Hyperbole-based Phraseological Expressions in Kazakh and English Languages. J Psycholinguist Res 53, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10052-1

https://pubpeer.com/publications/D52E26EE9DE5F83EA07B6B9917A645#1

My experience with the current batch of papers suggests that a relatively quick way of screening a submitted paper would be to look at the Methods section. This should contain an account of methods that would indicate what was done and how, at a level of detail sufficient for others to replicate the work. Obviously, this is not appropriate for theoretical papers, but for those purporting to report empirical work, it would work well, at least for the papers I looked at in JPR.   

All of these papers have authors from Kazakhstan, sometimes with co-authors from the Russian Federation. This led me to look at the geographic distribution of authors in the journal over time. The top countries represented by JPR authors in 2020 onwards are China (113), United States (68), Iran (52), Germany (28), Saudi Arabia (22) and Kazakhstan (19). However, these composite numbers mask striking trends. All the Kazakhstan authored papers are in 2023-2024. There's also a notable fall-off in papers authored by USA-based authors in the same time period, with only 11 cases in total. This is quite remarkable for a journal that had a striking USA dominance in authors up until around 2015, as shown in the attached figure (screenshot from Dimensions.ai).

 

Number of papers in JPR from five top countries: 2005-2024

Exported: October 20, 2024

Criteria: Source Title is Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

© 2024 Digital Science and Research Solutions Inc. All rights reserved. 

Non-commercial redistribution / external re-use of this work is permitted subject to appropriate acknowledgement. 

This work is sourced from Dimensions® at www.dimensions.ai.

Whenever a paper mill infestation is discovered, it raises the question of how it happened. Surely the whole purpose of peer review is to prevent low quality or fraudulent material entering the literature? In other journals where this has happened it has been found that the peer review process was compromised, with fake peer reviewers being used. Even so, one would have hoped that an editor would scrutinize papers and realise something was amiss. As mentioned in the previous blogpost, it would be much easier to track down the ways in which fraudulent papers get into mainstream journals if the journal reported information about the editor who handled the paper, and published open peer review.

Whatever the explanation, it is saddening to see a fine journal brought so low. In 2021, at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the journal, the current editor, Rafael Art. Javier, wrote a tribute to his predecessor, Robert Rieber:

"His expectation, as stated in that first issue, was that manuscripts accepted 'must add to knowledge in some way, whether they are in the form of experimental reports, review papers, or theoretical papers...and studies with negative results,' provided that they are of sufficiently high quality to make an original contribution."

Let us hope that the scourge of paper mills can be banished from the journal to allow it to be restored to the status it once had, and for Robert Rieber's words to once more be applicable.

 

Bishopblog catalogue (updated 19 October 2024)

Source: http://www.weblogcartoons.com/2008/11/23/ideas/

Those of you who follow this blog may have noticed a lack of thematic coherence. I write about whatever is exercising my mind at the time, which can range from technical aspects of statistics to the design of bathroom taps. I decided it might be helpful to introduce a bit of order into this chaotic melange, so here is a catalogue of posts by topic.

Language impairment, dyslexia and related disorders

The common childhood disorders that have been left out in the cold (1 Dec 2010) What's in a name? (18 Dec 2010) Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010) Where commercial and clinical interests collide: Auditory processing disorder (6 Mar 2011) Auditory processing disorder (30 Mar 2011) Special educational needs: will they be met by the Green paper proposals? (9 Apr 2011) Is poor parenting really to blame for children's school problems? (3 Jun 2011) Early intervention: what's not to like? (1 Sep 2011) Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011) A message to the world (31 Oct 2011) Vitamins, genes and language (13 Nov 2011) Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012) Phonics screening: sense and sensibility (3 Apr 2012) What Chomsky doesn't get about child language (3 Sept 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012) Auditory processing disorder: schisms and skirmishes (27 Oct 2012) High-impact journals (Action video games and dyslexia: critique) (10 Mar 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013) Raising awareness of language learning impairments (26 Sep 2013) Good and bad news on the phonics screen (5 Oct 2013) What is educational neuroscience? (25 Jan 2014) Parent talk and child language (17 Feb 2014) My thoughts on the dyslexia debate (20 Mar 2014) Labels for unexplained language difficulties in children (23 Aug 2014) International reading comparisons: Is England really do so poorly? (14 Sep 2014) Our early assessments of schoolchildren are misleading and damaging (4 May 2015) Opportunity cost: a new red flag for evaluating interventions (30 Aug 2015) The STEP Physical Literacy programme: have we been here before? (2 Jul 2017) Prisons, developmental language disorder, and base rates (3 Nov 2017) Reproducibility and phonics: necessary but not sufficient (27 Nov 2017) Developmental language disorder: the need for a clinically relevant definition (9 Jun 2018) Changing terminology for children's language disorders (23 Feb 2020) Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) in relaton to DSM5 (29 Feb 2020) Why I am not engaging with the Reading Wars (30 Jan 2022)

Autism

Autism diagnosis in cultural context (16 May 2011) Are our ‘gold standard’ autism diagnostic instruments fit for purpose? (30 May 2011) How common is autism? (7 Jun 2011) Autism and hypersystematising parents (21 Jun 2011) An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011) Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011) Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012) The ‘autism epidemic’ and diagnostic substitution (4 Jun 2012) How wishful thinking is damaging Peta's cause (9 June 2014) NeuroPointDX's blood test for Autism Spectrum Disorder ( 12 Jan 2019) Biomarkers to screen for autism (again) (6 Dec 2022)

Developmental disorders/paediatrics

The hidden cost of neglected tropical diseases (25 Nov 2010) The National Children's Study: a view from across the pond (25 Jun 2011) The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014) The sinister side of French psychoanalysis revealed (15 Oct 2019) A desire for clickbait can hinder an academic journal's reputation (4 Oct 2022) Polyunsaturated fatty acids and children's cognition: p-hacking and the canonisation of false facts (4 Sep 2023)

Genetics

Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from? (9 Sep 2010) Genes for optimism, dyslexia and obesity and other mythical beasts (10 Sep 2010) The X and Y of sex differences (11 May 2011) Review of How Genes Influence Behaviour (5 Jun 2011) Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (21 Nov 2012) Genes, brains and lateralisation (22 Dec 2012) Genetic variation and neuroimaging (11 Jan 2013) Have we become slower and dumber? (15 May 2013) Overhyped genetic findings: the case of dyslexia (16 Jun 2013) Incomprehensibility of much neurogenetics research ( 1 Oct 2016) A common misunderstanding of natural selection (8 Jan 2017) Sample selection in genetic studies: impact of restricted range (23 Apr 2017) Pre-registration or replication: the need for new standards in neurogenetic studies (1 Oct 2017) Review of 'Innate' by Kevin Mitchell ( 15 Apr 2019) Why eugenics is wrong (18 Feb 2020)

Neuroscience

Neuroprognosis in dyslexia (22 Dec 2010) Brain scans show that… (11 Jun 2011)  Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012) Neuronal migration in language learning impairments (2 May 2012) Sharing of MRI datasets (6 May 2012) Genetic variation and neuroimaging (1 Jan 2013) The arcuate fasciculus and word learning (11 Aug 2013) Changing children's brains (17 Aug 2013) What is educational neuroscience? ( 25 Jan 2014) Changing the landscape of psychiatric research (11 May 2014) Incomprehensibility of much neurogenetics research ( 1 Oct 2016)

Reproducibility
Accentuate the negative (26 Oct 2011) Novelty, interest and replicability (19 Jan 2012) High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013) Who's afraid of open data? (15 Nov 2015) Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) Research fraud: More scrutiny by administrators is not the answer (17 Jun 2013) Pressures against cumulative research (9 Jan 2014) Why does so much research go unpublished? (12 Jan 2014) Replication and reputation: Whose career matters? (29 Aug 2014) Open code: note just data and publications (6 Dec 2015) Why researchers need to understand poker ( 26 Jan 2016) Reproducibility crisis in psychology ( 5 Mar 2016) Further benefit of registered reports ( 22 Mar 2016) Would paying by results improve reproducibility? ( 7 May 2016) Serendipitous findings in psychology ( 29 May 2016) Thoughts on the Statcheck project ( 3 Sep 2016) When is a replication not a replication? (16 Dec 2016) Reproducible practices are the future for early career researchers (1 May 2017) Which neuroimaging measures are useful for individual differences research? (28 May 2017) Prospecting for kryptonite: the value of null results (17 Jun 2017) Pre-registration or replication: the need for new standards in neurogenetic studies (1 Oct 2017) Citing the research literature: the distorting lens of memory (17 Oct 2017) Reproducibility and phonics: necessary but not sufficient (27 Nov 2017) Improving reproducibility: the future is with the young (9 Feb 2018) Sowing seeds of doubt: how Gilbert et al's critique of the reproducibility project has played out (27 May 2018) Preprint publication as karaoke ( 26 Jun 2018) Standing on the shoulders of giants, or slithering around on jellyfish: Why reviews need to be systematic ( 20 Jul 2018) Matlab vs open source: costs and benefits to scientists and society ( 20 Aug 2018) Responding to the replication crisis: reflections on Metascience 2019 (15 Sep 2019) Manipulated images: hiding in plain sight (13 May 2020) Frogs or termites: gunshot or cumulative science? ( 6 Jun 2020) Open data: We know what's needed - now let's make it happen (27 Mar 2021) A proposal for data-sharing the discourages p-hacking (29 Jun 2022) Can systematic reviews help clean up science (9 Aug 2022)Polyunsaturated fatty acids and children's cognition: p-hacking and the canonisation of false facts (4 Sep 2023)  

Statistics

Book review: biography of Richard Doll (5 Jun 2010) Book review: the Invisible Gorilla (30 Jun 2010) The difference between p < .05 and a screening test (23 Jul 2010) Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010) A short nerdy post about the use of percentiles (13 Apr 2011) The joys of inventing data (5 Oct 2011) Getting genetic effect sizes in perspective (20 Apr 2012) Causal models of developmental disorders: the perils of correlational data (24 Jun 2012) Data from the phonics screen (1 Oct 2012)Moderate drinking in pregnancy: toxic or benign? (1 Nov 2012) Flaky chocolate and the New England Journal of Medicine (13 Nov 2012) Interpreting unexpected significant results (7 June 2013) Data analysis: Ten tips I wish I'd known earlier (18 Apr 2014) Data sharing: exciting but scary (26 May 2014) Percentages, quasi-statistics and bad arguments (21 July 2014) Why I still use Excel ( 1 Sep 2016) Sample selection in genetic studies: impact of restricted range (23 Apr 2017) Prospecting for kryptonite: the value of null results (17 Jun 2017) Prisons, developmental language disorder, and base rates (3 Nov 2017) How Analysis of Variance Works (20 Nov 2017) ANOVA, t-tests and regression: different ways of showing the same thing (24 Nov 2017) Using simulations to understand the importance of sample size (21 Dec 2017) Using simulations to understand p-values (26 Dec 2017) One big study or two small studies? ( 12 Jul 2018) Time to ditch relative risk in media reports (23 Jan 2020)

Journalism/science communication

Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010) Journalists and the 'scientific breakthrough' (13 Jun 2010) Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010) Orwellian prize for journalistic misrepresentation: an update (29 Jan 2011) Academic publishing: why isn't psychology like physics? (26 Feb 2011) Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011)  Publishers, psychological tests and greed (30 Dec 2011) Time for academics to withdraw free labour (7 Jan 2012) 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012) Time for neuroimaging (and PNAS) to clean up its act (5 Mar 2012) Communicating science in the age of the internet (13 Jul 2012) How to bury your academic writing (26 Aug 2012) High-impact journals: where newsworthiness trumps methodology (10 Mar 2013)  A short rant about numbered journal references (5 Apr 2013) Schizophrenia and child abuse in the media (26 May 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013) On the need for responsible reporting of research (10 Oct 2013) A New Year's letter to academic publishers (4 Jan 2014) Journals without editors: What is going on? (1 Feb 2015) Editors behaving badly? (24 Feb 2015) Will Elsevier say sorry? (21 Mar 2015) How long does a scientific paper need to be? (20 Apr 2015) Will traditional science journals disappear? (17 May 2015) My collapse of confidence in Frontiers journals (7 Jun 2015) Publishing replication failures (11 Jul 2015) Psychology research: hopeless case or pioneering field? (28 Aug 2015) Desperate marketing from J. Neuroscience ( 18 Feb 2016) Editorial integrity: publishers on the front line ( 11 Jun 2016) When scientific communication is a one-way street (13 Dec 2016) Breaking the ice with buxom grapefruits: Pratiques de publication and predatory publishing (25 Jul 2017) Should editors edit reviewers? ( 26 Aug 2018) Corrigendum: a word you may hope never to encounter (3 Aug 2019) Percent by most prolific author score and editorial bias (12 Jul 2020) PEPIOPs – prolific editors who publish in their own publications (16 Aug 2020) Faux peer-reviewed journals: a threat to research integrity (6 Dec 2020) Time to ditch relative risk in media reports (23 Jan 2020) Time for publishers to consider the rights of readers as well as authors (13 Mar 2021) Universities vs Elsevier: who has the upper hand? (14 Nov 2021) Book Review. Fiona Fox: Beyond the Hype (12 Apr 2022) We need to talk about editors (6 Sep 2022) So do we need editors? (11 Sep 2022) Reviewer-finding algorithms: the dangers for peer review (30 Sep 2022) A desire for clickbait can hinder an academic journal's reputation (4 Oct 2022) What is going on in Hindawi special issues? (12 Oct 2022) New Year's Eve Quiz: Dodgy journals special (31 Dec 2022) A suggestion for e-Life (20 Mar 2023) Papers affected by misconduct: Erratum, correction or retraction? (11 Apr 2023) Is Hindawi “well-positioned for revitalization?” (23 Jul 2023) The discussion section: Kill it or reform it? (14 Aug 2023) Spitting out the AI Gobbledegook sandwich: a suggestion for publishers (2 Oct 2023) The world of Poor Things at MDPI journals (Feb 9 2024) Some thoughts on eLife's New Model: One year on (Mar 27 2024) Does Elsevier's negligence pose a risk to public health? (Jun 20 2024) Collapse of scientific standards at MDPI journals: a case study (Jul 23 2024) My experience as a reviewer for MDPI (Aug 8 2024) Optimizing research integrity investigations: the need for evidence (Aug 22 2024) Now you see it, now you don't: the strange world of disappearing Special Issues at MDPI (Sep 4 2024) Prodding the behemoth with a stick (Sep 14 2024) Using PubPeer to screen editors (Sep 24 2024) An open letter regarding Scientific Reports (Oct 16 2024)

Social Media

A gentle introduction to Twitter for the apprehensive academic (14 Jun 2011) Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011) Will I still be tweeting in 2013? (2 Jan 2012) Blogging in the service of science (10 Mar 2012) Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) The impact of blogging on reputation ( 27 Dec 2013) WeSpeechies: A meeting point on Twitter (12 Apr 2014) Email overload ( 12 Apr 2016) How to survive on Twitter - a simple rule to reduce stress (13 May 2018)

Academic life

An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010) How our current reward structures have distorted and damaged science (6 Aug 2010) The challenge for science: speech by Colin Blakemore (14 Oct 2010) When ethics regulations have unethical consequences (14 Dec 2010) A day working from home (23 Dec 2010) Should we ration research grant applications? (8 Jan 2011) The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011) The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011) Should we ever fight lies with lies? (19 Jun 2011) How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011) So you want to be a research assistant? (25 Aug 2011) NHS research ethics procedures: a modern-day Circumlocution Office (18 Dec 2011) The REF: a monster that sucks time and money from academic institutions (20 Mar 2012) The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012) Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012) Journal impact factors and REF2014 (19 Jan 2013)  An alternative to REF2014 (26 Jan 2013) Postgraduate education: time for a rethink (9 Feb 2013)  Ten things that can sink a grant proposal (19 Mar 2013)Blogging as post-publication peer review (21 Mar 2013) The academic backlog (9 May 2013)  Discussion meeting vs conference: in praise of slower science (21 Jun 2013) Why we need pre-registration (6 Jul 2013) Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate (12 Sep 2013) High time to revise the PhD thesis format (9 Oct 2013) The Matthew effect and REF2014 (15 Oct 2013) The University as big business: the case of King's College London (18 June 2014) Should vice-chancellors earn more than the prime minister? (12 July 2014)  Some thoughts on use of metrics in university research assessment (12 Oct 2014) Tuition fees must be high on the agenda before the next election (22 Oct 2014) Blaming universities for our nation's woes (24 Oct 2014) Staff satisfaction is as important as student satisfaction (13 Nov 2014) Metricophobia among academics (28 Nov 2014) Why evaluating scientists by grant income is stupid (8 Dec 2014) Dividing up the pie in relation to REF2014 (18 Dec 2014)  Shaky foundations of the TEF (7 Dec 2015) A lamentable performance by Jo Johnson (12 Dec 2015) More misrepresentation in the Green Paper (17 Dec 2015) The Green Paper’s level playing field risks becoming a morass (24 Dec 2015) NSS and teaching excellence: wrong measure, wrongly analysed (4 Jan 2016) Lack of clarity of purpose in REF and TEF ( 2 Mar 2016) Who wants the TEF? ( 24 May 2016) Cost benefit analysis of the TEF ( 17 Jul 2016)  Alternative providers and alternative medicine ( 6 Aug 2016) We know what's best for you: politicians vs. experts (17 Feb 2017) Advice for early career researchers re job applications: Work 'in preparation' (5 Mar 2017) Should research funding be allocated at random? (7 Apr 2018) Power, responsibility and role models in academia (3 May 2018) My response to the EPA's 'Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science' (9 May 2018) More haste less speed in calls for grant proposals ( 11 Aug 2018) Has the Society for Neuroscience lost its way? ( 24 Oct 2018) The Paper-in-a-Day Approach ( 9 Feb 2019) Benchmarking in the TEF: Something doesn't add up ( 3 Mar 2019) The Do It Yourself conference ( 26 May 2019) A call for funders to ban institutions that use grant capture targets (20 Jul 2019) Research funders need to embrace slow science (1 Jan 2020) Should I stay or should I go: When debate with opponents should be avoided (12 Jan 2020) Stemming the flood of illegal external examiners (9 Feb 2020) What can scientists do in an emergency shutdown? (11 Mar 2020) Stepping back a level: Stress management for academics in the pandemic (2 May 2020)
TEF in the time of pandemic (27 Jul 2020) University staff cuts under the cover of a pandemic: the cases of Liverpool and Leicester (3 Mar 2021) Some quick thoughts on academic boycotts of Russia (6 Mar 2022) When there are no consequences for misconduct (16 Dec 2022) Open letter to CNRS (30 Mar 2023) When privacy rules protect fraudsters (Oct 12, 2023) Defence against the dark arts: a proposal for a new MSc course (Nov 19, 2023) An (intellectually?) enriching opportunity for affiliation (Feb 2 2024) Just make it stop! When will we say that further research isn't needed? (Mar 24 2024) Are commitments to open data policies worth the paper they are written on? (May 26 2024) Whistleblowing, research misconduct, and mental health (Jul 1 2024)

Celebrity scientists/quackery

Three ways to improve cognitive test scores without intervention (14 Aug 2010) What does it take to become a Fellow of the RSM? (24 Jul 2011) An open letter to Baroness Susan Greenfield (4 Aug 2011) Susan Greenfield and autistic spectrum disorder: was she misrepresented? (12 Aug 2011) How to become a celebrity scientific expert (12 Sep 2011) The kids are all right in daycare (14 Sep 2011)  The weird world of US ethics regulation (25 Nov 2011) Pioneering treatment or quackery? How to decide (4 Dec 2011) Psychoanalytic treatment for autism: Interviews with French analysts (23 Jan 2012) Neuroscientific interventions for dyslexia: red flags (24 Feb 2012) Why most scientists don't take Susan Greenfield seriously (26 Sept 2014) NeuroPointDX's blood test for Autism Spectrum Disorder ( 12 Jan 2019) Low-level lasers. Part 1. Shining a light on an unconventional treatment for autism (Nov 25, 2023) Low-level lasers. Part 2. Erchonia and the universal panacea (Dec 5, 2023)

Women

Academic mobbing in cyberspace (30 May 2010) What works for women: some useful links (12 Jan 2011) The burqua ban: what's a liberal response (21 Apr 2011) C'mon sisters! Speak out! (28 Mar 2012) Psychology: where are all the men? (5 Nov 2012) Should Rennard be reinstated? (1 June 2014) How the media spun the Tim Hunt story (24 Jun 2015)

Politics and Religion

Lies, damned lies and spin (15 Oct 2011) A letter to Nick Clegg from an ex liberal democrat (11 Mar 2012) BBC's 'extensive coverage' of the NHS bill (9 Apr 2012) Schoolgirls' health put at risk by Catholic view on vaccination (30 Jun 2012) A letter to Boris Johnson (30 Nov 2013) How the government spins a crisis (floods) (1 Jan 2014) The alt-right guide to fielding conference questions (18 Feb 2017) We know what's best for you: politicians vs. experts (17 Feb 2017) Barely a good word for Donald Trump in Houses of Parliament (23 Feb 2017) Do you really want another referendum? Be careful what you wish for (12 Jan 2018) My response to the EPA's 'Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science' (9 May 2018) What is driving Theresa May? ( 27 Mar 2019) A day out at 10 Downing St (10 Aug 2019) Voting in the EU referendum: Ignorance, deceit and folly ( 8 Sep 2019) Harry Potter and the Beast of Brexit (20 Oct 2019) Attempting to communicate with the BBC (8 May 2020) Boris bingo: strategies for (not) answering questions (29 May 2020) Linking responsibility for climate refugees to emissions (23 Nov 2021) Response to Philip Ball's critique of scientific advisors (16 Jan 2022) Boris Johnson leads the world ....in the number of false facts he can squeeze into a session of PMQs (20 Jan 2022) Some quick thoughts on academic boycotts of Russia (6 Mar 2022) Contagion of the political system (3 Apr 2022)When there are no consequences for misconduct (16 Dec 2022)

Humour and miscellaneous Orwellian prize for scientific misrepresentation (1 Jun 2010) An exciting day in the life of a scientist (24 Jun 2010) Science journal editors: a taxonomy (28 Sep 2010) Parasites, pangolins and peer review (26 Nov 2010) A day working from home (23 Dec 2010) The one hour lecture (11 Mar 2011) The expansion of research regulators (20 Mar 2011) Scientific communication: the Comment option (25 May 2011) How to survive in psychological research (13 Jul 2011) Your Twitter Profile: The Importance of Not Being Earnest (19 Nov 2011) 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (29 Jan 2012) The ultimate email auto-response (12 Apr 2012) Well, this should be easy…. (21 May 2012) The bewildering bathroom challenge (19 Jul 2012) Are Starbucks hiding their profits on the planet Vulcan? (15 Nov 2012) Forget the Tower of Hanoi (11 Apr 2013) How do you communicate with a communications company? ( 30 Mar 2014) Noah: A film review from 32,000 ft (28 July 2014) The rationalist spa (11 Sep 2015) Talking about tax: weasel words ( 19 Apr 2016) Controversial statues: remove or revise? (22 Dec 2016) The alt-right guide to fielding conference questions (18 Feb 2017) My most popular posts of 2016 (2 Jan 2017) An index of neighbourhood advantage from English postcode data ( 15 Sep 2018) Working memories: A brief review of Alan Baddeley's memoir ( 13 Oct 2018) New Year's Eve Quiz: Dodgy journals special (31 Dec 2022)