blog

 (This is part 4 of a series of posts featuring speakers from “Challenging the Science Publishing Status Quo”, an evening of talks about peer review, data sharing, and open access. Previously: Lawrence Kane on rapid publication, Keith Flaherty on publishing negative results , Steven Hyman on sharing datasets )

Sue Griffin is is Dillard Professor and Vice Chairman at the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She has also been a referee for F1000Research, and her talk focussed on the benefits of open and transparent peer review.

Griffin’s slides are available via F1000Posters, and all video segments of her talk are found embedded in or linked from the text below:

She started her talk by pointing out that signing peer review reports is still scary to some people, but will help to reduce rude and overly negative comments in referee reports.

“If we can get to the place where we really feel open and we feel like we can sign [referee reports] then I think we will achieve a new era of civility.”

Griffin also added to the previous talk by further encouraging data sharing.

She then continued to tell an anecdote about an interesting research paper that almost didn’t get published with traditional peer review. It was a case report that she handled as editor, and which looked like something that a lot of other researchers and patient groups would be interested in, but which the referees shot down for being too new and different. Griffin published it anyway, and it received a lot of interest from people who wanted to know more. Her motivation for publishing it was to get as much information in the literature.

She praises the F1000Research model, where a paper like this would have been published immediately, and the referees would have had to sign their name, and explain publicly why they didn’t like the paper, leaving judgment with the readers.

“We’re serving the public, and openness is the only way we can do it.”

After reiterating the need for civility in scientific discourse (including reviews!) Griffin warns against vanity: Reviewers should judge a paper by its merit, and not review with a particular journal in mind.

In closing, Griffin urges researchers to talk to the government about science, open access publishing and data sharing.

“We have to join together and educate our policy makers and politicians.”

“The future is already coming”, emphasizes Griffin, and lists as example the popularity of the TV show The Big Bang Theory. If a show about physicists is reaching the public, then we really should be sharing our research.