I’m sure most of our readers know that a groundbreaking article was published on May 15th regarding patient specific stem cell cloning. What has come to light since then about the publishing process for the article has been slightly disturbing. First, I looked at the original announcements and information about stem cell research, then I went on to explore issues surrounding science communication and scholarly publishing. It all started (as far as I could tell) with this announcement:
Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer! Paper from Shoukhrat Mitalipov et. al @ ow.ly/l3I0d
— Cell at CellPress (@CellCellPress) May 15, 2013
This immediately lead to ethical and policy questions being raised. Many discussions were found on the following hashtags #bioethics, #stemcell, #stemcells, and #cloning.
— David Steinberg (@DavidASteinberg) May 15, 2013
— Molecular Cell (@MolecularCell) May 17, 2013
— TheNewAtlantis.com (@tnajournal) May 17, 2013
— Discovery Institute (@DiscoveryCSC) May 20, 2013
What we found out this week was that the paper was pushed through the publication process so quickly that some (minor) mistakes were found through post-publication peer review including a manipulated image. These conversations are still unfolding.
— Berman Institute(@bermaninstitute) May 23, 2013
Surprising carelessness from authors, publishers in Cell stem-cell cloning paper. However, findings still seem valid. dlvr.it/3Q2DsP
— Alex Goglia (@alexgoglia) May 23, 2013
.@wilbanks Time for someone to start scholarlyca .com: “Scholarly Closed Access — critical analysis of scholarly closed-access publishing”
— Mike Taylor (@MikeTaylor) May 23, 2013
I mean, we all hate the sloooooow publishing turnaround times, but three days is…too far in the other direction.
— Sci Curious (@scicurious) May 23, 2013
I don’t blame the authors of the #stemcell paper for the rushed pub–who wouldn’t say “hey, great!” to a sub 3 week turnaround on a paper??!
— Andy Kass (@DrAndyKass) May 23, 2013
— Richard Van Noorden (@Richvn) May 23, 2013
— nprGlobalHealth (@nprGlobalHealth) May 23, 2013
— LizNeeley (@LizNeeley) May 22, 2013
— Kristen Delevich (@K_dele) May 23, 2013
This has lent some steam to the conversations that were already focused on the publishing process and its role in research, faculty status, and science communication.
Are We In a Rut? Explaining the Increasing Homogenization of Scholarly and Scientific Publishing wp.me/pcvbl-8qC
— Scholarly Kitchen (@scholarlykitchn) May 16, 2013
— Garrett Eastman (@notinmy) May 16, 2013
sciencemag.org/content/340/61… This Science editorial on Impact Factors is a must-read for my scientist friends
— David Shiffman (@WhySharksMatter) May 23, 2013
— lorcan dempsey (@lorcanD) May 22, 2013
— Richard Poynder (@RickyPo) May 22, 2013
My latest: Why stories make a good vehicle for science communication davenussbaum.com/narrative-tran…
— Dave Nussbaum (@davenuss79) May 21, 2013