tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/academy-of-science-17511/articlesAcademy of Science – The Conversation2017-09-20T14:17:37Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/842232017-09-20T14:17:37Z2017-09-20T14:17:37ZThe peer review system has flaws. But it’s still a barrier to bad science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186593/original/file-20170919-22701-1l6j0rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research must be carefully scrutinised by peer reviewers to ensure its veracity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nattapat Jitrungruengnij/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Democracy and scientific peer review have something in common: it’s a “system full of problems but the least worst we have”. That’s the view of <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/category/columnists/richard-smith/">Richard Smith</a>, a medical doctor and former editor of the illustrious <a href="http://www.bmj.com/">British Medical Journal</a>. </p>
<p>Wiley, a large academic publishing house, <a href="https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html">says that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another publishing house, Springer, <a href="https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/editors/peer-review/32888">describes</a> peer reviewers as being “almost like intellectual gatekeepers to the journal as they provide an objective assessment of a paper and determine if it is useful enough to be published”. </p>
<p>The peer review system has received a fair amount of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/">negative press</a> in recent years. It has been criticised largely because it is not particularly transparent and depends on a small number of peer reviews, an approach that can lend itself to cronyism. In addition it depends on trust: trust that reviewers will be fair and are willing to put sufficient time into a critical review. In this era of overworked academics being asked to do ever more, “sufficient time” is in short supply.</p>
<p>Despite these concerns, I agree with Smith: peer review is the “least worst” system available for assessing academic research and maintaining science’s integrity. Having worked in academia for the past 30 years and currently serving as Vice President of the <a href="https://www.assaf.org.za/">Academy of Science of South Africa</a>, I believe peer review and the publication process is perhaps more important than ever in this era of “fake news” – and not just for scientists and academics. Thorough review and robust pre and post publication engagement by a scientist’s peers are crucial if the average person in the street is to navigate a world full of pseudo-science.</p>
<h2>Scientific truth is built on replication</h2>
<p>One classic case of scientific fraud was the “<a href="http://www2.clarku.edu/%7EPiltdown/map_report_finds/pilt_man_discover.html">Piltdown man</a>” in 1912. Bone fragments supposed to be from an archaeological site in England were presented as a human ancestor. The alleged discovery of an early hominid in England was comfortable for British and European scientists at the time as it suggested that humans evolved in Europe. But this report was the source of controversy for many years. </p>
<p>While the Piltdown man has been recognised as a hoax since 1953, <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/8/160328">DNA evidence</a> of the fact that the bones come from both an orangutan and probably two human specimens was only recently published. </p>
<p>This case illustrates both the strengths and weakness of the scientific publishing system. The hoax was possibly published because it fitted with the theories of the time. The report was, however, hugely controversial; was re-examined and with time was shown by scientists to be fraudulent. </p>
<p>This is a good starting point for understanding how real science works; how research is peer reviewed and critically examined before what is reported can be considered scientific fact.</p>
<p>Perfect science is never based on a single publication. Each publication is essentially a hypothesis: it will be read by other researchers, who will try to repeat or adapt what was done and then publish their own findings.</p>
<p>The peer review system is more complex than a reviewer just rejecting or accepting a manuscript. Quite often a reviewer suggests other experiments that authors have overlooked or different interpretations for some of the data. This means reviewers add significantly to improving the research and analysis that is performed. </p>
<p>There is no question that the reviews that I receive from higher impact factor journals are, on average, more critical and more useful. The impact factor is <a href="https://www.une.edu.au/library/support/eskills-plus/mastering-the-academic-literature/journal-quality">calculated</a> “by dividing the number of current citations to articles published [in the journal] in the two previous years by the total number of articles published in the two previous years”.</p>
<p>In fact in some cases a strong review will send me and my collaborators back to the laboratory and in so doing significantly strengthen our research. The amazing thing about this is that no fee is asked for these reviews. Yet scientists across the world do them willingly.</p>
<p>So scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. You might ask, then, what value peer review offers – since, over time, an article that was found suitable for publication and further debate by peer reviewers may be debunked.</p>
<h2>Why do we need peer review?</h2>
<p>Peer review provides a filtering system. Studies that are not well conceived or performed will <a href="https://www.editage.com/insights/most-common-reasons-for-journal-rejection">not be published</a>. They will be filtered out either by a journal’s editor or the reviewers. This means that what appears in the scientific literature is more likely to be of a higher quality. Readers of the peer reviewed literature know that it has been subjected to some level of critique. It is not merely the authors’ opinion that what’s being proposed in a particular article is the truth.</p>
<p>Editors and reviewers of peer review journals demand a particular style and level of experimental rigour. Results are substantiated with graphs, diagrams and in some cases photographs. Experiments are always repeated at least once and sometimes more often. Data is subjected to analysis and in some cases statistical methods are used to prove significance. </p>
<p>But how can the quality of a journal be measured in the first place?</p>
<p>A quick Google search throws up many hundreds of scientific journals. Many of these are likely to be <a href="http://beallslist.weebly.com">predatory</a>, charging authors publication fees without providing the sorts of publishing and editing services offered by legitimate journals.</p>
<p>An ordinary reader should find out which association, society or organisation publishes the journal. Alternatively, take a look at the editorial board.</p>
<p>Respected scientists do not link their names to journals they do not respect. Any respected scientist in a discipline knows which are the “good” journals – a decision they make by looking at the quality of the science in such publications.</p>
<p>Next time you read some interesting report or scientific news it’s worth using the internet to check to see if the report is in fact supported by peer reviewed literature that meets these standards. At the very least do this before you share it on Facebook and add to the pseudo-science that already exists.</p>
<h2>The best system for now</h2>
<p>Until such time as there is a better system, peer review and the subsequent publication process with experimental repetition is the only source of substantiated evidence available. Similar to democracy we all need to understand its strengths and weaknesses.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brenda Wingfield receives funding from National Research Foundation, Tree Protection Co-operative Programme and is vice president of ASSAf.</span></em></p>Scientific truth is based on a body of research which has been tried and tested by many researchers over time. Peer review filters the good science from the bad.Brenda Wingfield, Vice President of the Academy of Science of South Africa and DST-NRF SARChI chair in Fungal Genomics, Professor of Genetics, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/425902015-06-03T04:34:42Z2015-06-03T04:34:42ZAfrica has a long way to go to get more women into the sciences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83699/original/image-20150602-19259-3xwpgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rita Yao Kakou belongs to the Association of Women Researchers, which works to raise the profile of women in science in the Ivory Coast.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Thierry Gouegnon </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s still a man’s world in <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/mit-doyenne-science-still-a-mans-world/2002537.article">African science</a>. The marginalisation of women in science is not unique, though, to the continent. It is a pattern around the globe. It has been estimated that, on average, only 30% of science roles throughout the world are <a href="http://www.uis.unesco.org/ScienceTechnology/Documents/unesco-science-technology-gender-2007-en.pdf">held by women</a>. </p>
<p>In the 114 years over which Nobel Prizes have been awarded, <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html">47 women</a> have received prizes, with 16 being honoured in what is termed the disciplinary areas of the awards (that is, not including literature and peace). Two of these prizes were in physics, five in chemistry, eight in physiology and medicine, and one in economics. </p>
<p>The Fields Medal, which is awarded to outstanding <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldsMedal.html">mathematicians under 40</a>, has only once in the past 70 years been given to a woman, Maryam Mirzakhani, in 2014. The Abel Prize (instituted since 2003 for mathematicians) has never been won by a woman.</p>
<p>Representation of women in the sciences is even more dire in Africa. Reliable and recent data, beyond South Africa, is scant. This in itself is an indictment on the limited attention paid to women in the sciences.</p>
<h2>Few and far between</h2>
<p>The reasons for the poor representation of women in science in Africa are a mixture of the barriers women face all over the world, combined with some added complexities.</p>
<p>Where data becomes available, it does not paint a positive picture. Only three of the 13 members of the council of the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) are women, although a woman leads the academy as its executive officer.</p>
<p>In most other academies of science across the continent, the norm is that there is one (or no) female council members. In April 2015, the University of Cape Town appointed chemical engineer Alison Lewis as the first female Dean of Engineering and the Built Environment <a href="https://www.uct.ac.za/usr/press/2015/AlisonLewis_28April2015.pdf">in the 186-year old institution</a>. She is only the second woman in South Africa to hold such a post.</p>
<p>The Association of African Women in Science and Engineering estimates that women make up no more than 20% of the academics in these fields in Africa. In South Africa, slightly fewer than 40% of scientists, engineers and technologists are women – and, as in the US, the figures are lower in the physical sciences. South Africa’s science statistics look a little better than the continent because it includes health sciences professionals. </p>
<p>In the US, women are also a minority. 46% of academics in science and engineering are women. The number is bolstered by the 16% in life sciences. </p>
<p>South Africa, at least, has a host of distinguished women scholars who, like Alison Lewis, are admirably suited to lead departments, faculties, universities, research foundations and institutes. Three of South Africa’s six world-leading researchers in their fields, as determined in 2014, are women.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83661/original/image-20150602-6960-kpl02e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Celine Nobah of the Association of Women Researchers in the Ivory Coast conducts research to ensure that fish in the lagoon Ebrie are safe for consumption.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Thierry Gouegnon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s keeping women out?</h2>
<p>This gloomy outlook may be attributed to at least four fundamental causes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Historically, girls and women have not had the same access to education as their male counterparts have enjoyed.</p></li>
<li><p>Methods of teaching science have not considered gender equality in teacher education and curriculum development. There is a lingering tradition in some schools of encouraging boys to study physical science and girls to focus on biology and become teachers. While the situation is serious in South Africa, it is often more severe in other parts of the continent. In Kenya, for example, the number of women in engineering remains <a href="http://blog.wmiafrica.org/status-of-women-in-engineering-in-kenya/">very low</a>. </p></li>
<li><p>Institutional structures, and a persistent lack of support in the workplace, have disadvantaged women in their quest to progress in scientific careers.</p></li>
<li><p>Deliberate and persistent, although often hidden, discrimination remains – in academia as elsewhere in society.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Sexism is still a major barrier to women. A recent review of an article submitted to open access science journal <a href="http://www.plosone.org/">The Public Library of Science</a> suggested that female authors find a man to work with if they wanted a paper to be accepted. This is just one example of blatant sexism. The journal’s editors either did not notice the reviewer’s comment or thought it reasonable – until the female authors drew it to world’s attention by tweeting the remark. </p>
<p>Overall, these factors ensure that it remains true that women remain the minority members of science and engineering disciplines in academia.</p>
<h2>More women in the sciences makes sense</h2>
<p>There is a <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001540/154045e.pdf">strong case</a> to be made for having more female scientists. Increasing women’s involvement, input and access to science and technology is essential to reducing poverty, creating job opportunities and increasing agricultural and industrial productivity. It is also key to tapping into human potential in rapidly changing areas and improving how we use technology, especially in the vital developmental areas of water resources management, food production and processing, and sanitation. </p>
<p><a href="http://owsd.ictp.it/genderinsite-coming-your-way-soon">Some steps</a> are being taken to remedy the disparity. The aim of one ASSAf <a href="http://wisat.org/data/documents/Elsevier-AAASFeb2013.pdf">project</a> is to conduct a series of studies to highlight the role that women are playing in various aspects of science. Still in its infancy, the initiative also plans to look at how science and technology can support both women and men and promote the leadership of women. </p>
<p>The continent has a great deal to do to encourage women to take up <a href="http://wisat.org/what-we-do/sti1/">careers in science</a>, technology and innovation – starting from school level. First and foremost, attitudes towards girls and women need to change. Nearly 30 million girls on the continent between the ages of six and 15 are not in school, most of whom will never set foot <a href="http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/no-girl-left-behind.aspx">in a classroom</a>. </p>
<p>Getting women into the sciences is not possible unless we deal with this problem first. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is based on a leader piece written by the author in the May/June 2015 issue of the South African <a href="http://www.sajs.co.za/">Journal of Science</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Butler-Adam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Men rule the roost in science and technology as women continue to battle against the glass ceiling.John Butler-Adam, Editor-in-Chief of the South African Journal of Science and Consultant, Vice Principal for Research and Graduate Education , University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.