The True Story of a Fake Name on Some Scientific Papers
October 12, 2014 2:05 PM Subscribe
"I asked Ciccotti what they meant. When he explained it to me, I thought that Stronzo Bestiale would have been the perfect co-author for a refused publication. So I decided to submit my papers again, simply by changing the title and adding the name of that author. And the researches were published."
With a few other examples of of the intentional overlapping of scientific publications and foreign profanity, including one relevant to every American worker who gets a FICA deduction on their paycheck. May be NSFW in Italy.
H.A.M.S. ter Tisha was the coauthor (and pet hamster) of physicist Andre Geim on one paper.
posted by elgilito at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by elgilito at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I would twist a sentence well past breaking point before getting anywhere near needing to debate 'I' vs 'we' in a journal article.
posted by biffa at 2:45 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 2:45 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Came for Galadriel Mirkwood, left satisfied.
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:52 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:52 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
In reality, though, it laid bare how vulnerable control systems in the review of scientific research were (and still are!) . If you are able to insert in a publication the name of a nonexistent author in a publication, who will guarantee that even the scientific contents have been examined with care?
That doesn't really follow. If I review a paper, I need to be able to understand the general background of the subject, the method, and the analysis of the data; I don't have to know the names of every single person in the field (and there isn't anywhere to look it up). Besides, they might be someone new with no established record; this is very common with graduate students, etc. Really the only way anyone would find this in review is if they carefully read the authors list and spoke Italian fluently, which wasn't necessary to understand the paper.
It's peer review, it's not a background check for the authors. Scientists reasonably expect and should be able to expect that their colleagues are not going to 'Seymore Butts' them.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:16 PM on October 12, 2014 [12 favorites]
That doesn't really follow. If I review a paper, I need to be able to understand the general background of the subject, the method, and the analysis of the data; I don't have to know the names of every single person in the field (and there isn't anywhere to look it up). Besides, they might be someone new with no established record; this is very common with graduate students, etc. Really the only way anyone would find this in review is if they carefully read the authors list and spoke Italian fluently, which wasn't necessary to understand the paper.
It's peer review, it's not a background check for the authors. Scientists reasonably expect and should be able to expect that their colleagues are not going to 'Seymore Butts' them.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:16 PM on October 12, 2014 [12 favorites]
Mitrovarr, I nearly said the same thing. I have reviewed papers by Korean, Iranian, Malaysian, Chinese, Greek and Spanish authors in the last 18 months and I would have no idea if one of the names used was absolute filth or not - am I supposed to have a working knowledge of smut in a couple of hundred languages?
What the instance in the linked article does speak to is the pure crapshoot that is submission of work to journals. One submission is rejected, the next is accepted with what sounded like minimum requests for change. Its just total fluke as to who you get and whether (1) they know much about that bit of the field and (2) they can be arsed to pay any attention at all. I am frequently asked to review absolute trash and often to look at stuff that is nowhere near what I could meaningfully comment on. I imagine some people are saying yes to similar requests in both cases.
Based on what I get back sometimes and what I see from co-reviewers I am of the opinion that the review system is totally borked. I wish reviewers who accept papers that are clearly shite were the worst but below that are the ones who say a paper is fine, it just needs a few refs added to complete it, all as it turns out pretty tangential to the paper, all coincidentally by the same author and one who is not one known for a significant contribution to the field.
I have seen one paper get two sets of feedback, one saying publish immediately, no weaknesses, another reject, no strengths.
I have often seen authors asked to make revisions and even major revisions with no real clue as to what was wanted by the reviewers or what was being criticised.
posted by biffa at 3:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [6 favorites]
What the instance in the linked article does speak to is the pure crapshoot that is submission of work to journals. One submission is rejected, the next is accepted with what sounded like minimum requests for change. Its just total fluke as to who you get and whether (1) they know much about that bit of the field and (2) they can be arsed to pay any attention at all. I am frequently asked to review absolute trash and often to look at stuff that is nowhere near what I could meaningfully comment on. I imagine some people are saying yes to similar requests in both cases.
Based on what I get back sometimes and what I see from co-reviewers I am of the opinion that the review system is totally borked. I wish reviewers who accept papers that are clearly shite were the worst but below that are the ones who say a paper is fine, it just needs a few refs added to complete it, all as it turns out pretty tangential to the paper, all coincidentally by the same author and one who is not one known for a significant contribution to the field.
I have seen one paper get two sets of feedback, one saying publish immediately, no weaknesses, another reject, no strengths.
I have often seen authors asked to make revisions and even major revisions with no real clue as to what was wanted by the reviewers or what was being criticised.
posted by biffa at 3:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [6 favorites]
So there are these great things called Erdös numbers (previously, previously). You can look up a bunch of these on the Collaboration Distance tool at the AMS website. Though I can't find any for F.D.C. Willard, H.A.M.S. ted Tisha, or Galadriel Mirkwood, Stronzo Bestiale apparently has a 3.
posted by wormwood23 at 3:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by wormwood23 at 3:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
If you are able to insert in a publication the name of a nonexistent author in a publication, who will guarantee that even the scientific contents have been examined with care?
The reviewers. Responsible peer review is blinded. Reviewers are not supposed to know who the authors are at all. They only examine the contents.
posted by yeolcoatl at 5:51 PM on October 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
The reviewers. Responsible peer review is blinded. Reviewers are not supposed to know who the authors are at all. They only examine the contents.
posted by yeolcoatl at 5:51 PM on October 12, 2014 [8 favorites]
I would twist a sentence well past breaking point before getting anywhere near needing to debate 'I' vs 'we' in a journal article.
My advisor told me when I was a graduate student that the "we" in articles can be understood to be the collection of the author(s) and the reader---that understanding the text/ideas is a collaborative process.
In graduate school, I learned about John Rainwater, who was the pseudonym of a bunch of folks who wanted to publish theorems that were well-known in the discipline (i.e., mathematical folklore) but hadn't appeared in print. (Or, at least, that was the story I was told. Wikipedia doesn't agree, quite.)
posted by leahwrenn at 5:58 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
My advisor told me when I was a graduate student that the "we" in articles can be understood to be the collection of the author(s) and the reader---that understanding the text/ideas is a collaborative process.
In graduate school, I learned about John Rainwater, who was the pseudonym of a bunch of folks who wanted to publish theorems that were well-known in the discipline (i.e., mathematical folklore) but hadn't appeared in print. (Or, at least, that was the story I was told. Wikipedia doesn't agree, quite.)
posted by leahwrenn at 5:58 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Missing the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper (though Bethe existed and made other contributions to the subject).
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 6:24 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 6:24 PM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Missing the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper
Rats. I came to make this very offering.
Ralph Alpher of course later found fame on the 1960s hit comedy series Green Acres.
posted by Herodios at 6:46 PM on October 12, 2014
Rats. I came to make this very offering.
Ralph Alpher of course later found fame on the 1960s hit comedy series Green Acres.
posted by Herodios at 6:46 PM on October 12, 2014
yeolcoatl: "The reviewers. Responsible peer review is blinded. Reviewers are not supposed to know who the authors are at all. They only examine the contents."
Which raises a different but related question: how was this paper able to pass review the second time based only on a title change?
posted by pwnguin at 10:49 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Which raises a different but related question: how was this paper able to pass review the second time based only on a title change?
posted by pwnguin at 10:49 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Different reviewers.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:59 PM on October 12, 2014
posted by MartinWisse at 10:59 PM on October 12, 2014
pwnguin: Which raises a different but related question: how was this paper able to pass review the second time based only on a title change?
Hard to say. It could be that either the first or the second review wasn't done well. However, there are always going to be papers that may or may not pass review depending on who reviews them. They might either be borderline in quality, or difficult to understand, or some reviewers might want to reject them while others might ask for extensive improvements. It doesn't necessarily indicate a problem in the review process.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:09 PM on October 12, 2014
Hard to say. It could be that either the first or the second review wasn't done well. However, there are always going to be papers that may or may not pass review depending on who reviews them. They might either be borderline in quality, or difficult to understand, or some reviewers might want to reject them while others might ask for extensive improvements. It doesn't necessarily indicate a problem in the review process.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:09 PM on October 12, 2014
The reviewers. Responsible peer review is blinded. Reviewers are not supposed to know who the authors are at all. They only examine the contents.
I agree in principle, but I think the implementation is very field-dependant. In my experience, it's totally routine for the reviewers to be sent full author lists. As I understand it, the argument for doing this is that the reviewers benefit from knowing that the authors are well known for having skill in a particular technique, or access to a particular sample bank or shiny bit of equipment that makes their data more reliable. I've also heard it argued that it's almost impossible to not know whose paper you're reviewing -- you'll have seen them present preliminary data at a conference, heard on the grapevine, be able to infer it from e.g. the patient population they were working with -- so it's better to acknowledge and formalise that lack of blinding.
I agree, though, that spotting a fake name is basically impossible. Even with an astonishingly good memory for the names of people in your field, you'll always have new people popping up (students, postdoc changing fields, etc). Even if you take the time to look everyone in some kind of international smut dictionary, some people do just have silly names.
I have seen one paper get two sets of feedback, one saying publish immediately, no weaknesses, another reject, no strengths.
I had something along these lines, except it was blindingly obvious that the negative reviewer hadn't actually read the paper. The hardest thing about writing that response was finding a dozen different ways to politely say "We've already done that, look at Figure XX". The most entertaining part was explaining that no, it hadn't been possible to extract sperm samples from the female animals.
posted by metaBugs at 3:59 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
I agree in principle, but I think the implementation is very field-dependant. In my experience, it's totally routine for the reviewers to be sent full author lists. As I understand it, the argument for doing this is that the reviewers benefit from knowing that the authors are well known for having skill in a particular technique, or access to a particular sample bank or shiny bit of equipment that makes their data more reliable. I've also heard it argued that it's almost impossible to not know whose paper you're reviewing -- you'll have seen them present preliminary data at a conference, heard on the grapevine, be able to infer it from e.g. the patient population they were working with -- so it's better to acknowledge and formalise that lack of blinding.
I agree, though, that spotting a fake name is basically impossible. Even with an astonishingly good memory for the names of people in your field, you'll always have new people popping up (students, postdoc changing fields, etc). Even if you take the time to look everyone in some kind of international smut dictionary, some people do just have silly names.
I have seen one paper get two sets of feedback, one saying publish immediately, no weaknesses, another reject, no strengths.
I had something along these lines, except it was blindingly obvious that the negative reviewer hadn't actually read the paper. The hardest thing about writing that response was finding a dozen different ways to politely say "We've already done that, look at Figure XX". The most entertaining part was explaining that no, it hadn't been possible to extract sperm samples from the female animals.
posted by metaBugs at 3:59 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
I can think of several ways to extract a sperm sample from a female animal. Sure, it won't be their own personal sperm*, but still.
*Unless your country's property and animal-custody regimes allow for animals to have property rights... then it would be their sperm... from a certain point of view.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:45 AM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
*Unless your country's property and animal-custody regimes allow for animals to have property rights... then it would be their sperm... from a certain point of view.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:45 AM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Five Swedish-based scientists have been inserting Bob Dylan lyrics into research articles as part of a long-running bet. After 17 years, the researchers revealed their race to quote Dylan as many times as possible before retirement.
posted by mbrubeck at 10:21 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 10:21 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
The philosopher David K. Lewis loved dialogues so much that "he wrote a critique of his views on vision, published it under the name of his cat "Bruce LeCatt" (in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1982), then wrote a rebuttal." (From K. Healy)
posted by Phersu at 2:34 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Phersu at 2:34 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Afrofuturism: The New Wave | "You Hockey Puck!" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by miguelcervantes at 2:31 PM on October 12, 2014 [9 favorites]