c*******n
发帖数: 43 | 1 Facebook Link (Sharing is welcomed and appreciated):
http://www.facebook.com/notes/hao-sun/worlds-acdemic-publishing
World's Acdemic Publishing Giant "No Longer Accepting" Comments and
Scientific Analysis on its Disturbing News Report
Aug. 3rd, 2012, 12:46pm EST|By chemrobin
Akron, OH(WSN)-"It is shame on Nature to publish such low quality article.
It only shows Nature is no longer one of top Journals." Andy Wu, one of the
numerous readers of a news report on the website of Nature, the world's
leading acdemic publishing group, posted her sad feeling online.
Ye Shiwen, a 16-year-old Chinese swimming anthelete, won the women's 400
meter IM last Saturday, breaking the world record. She broke her own Olympic
record to take the 200 IM title on the following Tuesday.
Instead of celebrating this new achievement of all human being who chesrich
the holy spirit of Olympics, Clare Balding, the sports commentator from the
state-run BBC, commented right after the game that "How many questions will
there be", implying doping was highly probable.
The International Olympic Committee(ICO), quickly responded and stated Ye "
passed all the drug tests" and was "clean". While western media continued to
show their enthusiasm on this "controversy", most athletes and coaches said
they have no evidence to question Ye's performance.
"The resulting debate has been tinged with racial and political undertones,
but little science." On Aug. 1st, an aritcle appeared on the website of the
Nature publishing group, which is considered as the world's most prestigious
academic publisher. The article, titiled "Why great Olympic feats raise
suspicions-'Performance profiling' could help to catch cheater", used Ye's
case to demonstrate that drug test is not enough to catch cheaters and a
proposed "performance profiling" might be helpful.
Being a website affiliated with Nature, the readers of this ariticle, mostly
people in the scientific community, quickly realized that the data and
logics in this article, and therefore the conclusion of it, are with flaws.
Mr. Lai Jiang, currently a Ph.D. candidate of the University of Pennsylvania
, pointed out in a comment that "even though the author did not falsify any
data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too
suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view." Jiang explained carefully
in his comment why the article is problematic and how to analyze the data in
a more professional manner.
Jiang, having been familiar with both experimental and theoretical aspects
of lab research for several years, just published his new research "Rigorous
Definition of Oxidation States of Ions in Solids" on Physical Review Letter
earlier this year. Shiwei Qumu, another reader of the article, agreed that
Jiang's analysis is a "well-grounded, quite prudent argument".
Here comes the magics. Jiang's comment "disappeared" on the website from an
unknown time. "Where is the comment by Dr. Lai Jiang?" Question raised. But
no one knows. "I understand that you removed Lai Jiang's article, because he
is proofing in a sound way and hurted your fame and feeling." Huang Bo, a
reader who is confused why the comment from Mr. Jiang, as well as that from
his own, were missing, requested an offcial and formal explanation: "Excuse
me, can you send me the review details of my comment? It was removed last
night. "
While solid analysis disappeared, Nature's official response finally came to
the scientific community and the general public. "We strongly reject
suggestions that it (--the original article) was motivated by bias or racism
", an "Editor's Note" stated online in the morning of Aug. 3rd, "We are no
longer accepting comments on this news story".
But still, where is Jiang's comment? Does it say anything related to "racism
"? Readers are curious, but not the Nature editors. "We intentionally
deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines", said the
Editor's note. Yanbo Jia, a scientist who could't believe Nature's
unprofessional manner, did not understand "on what basis do you think Lai
Jiang's comment violated the Community Guidelines", and hoped the editor
could "explain this, or you are just too afraid of being scientifically and
logically rebutted".
"Because of the volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared". This
is the only answer from Nature. Fortunatelly, Jiang's comment, as well as
other solid analysis, were backed up by other readers. "Lai jiang's comment
(#47487) has been 'anomalously' deleted by online editor. I re-post it here"
, Jianbo Wang, a careful and smart reader who happened to save Jiang's
comment, could feel proud of himself. |
|
