The Peer-Review Problem: a sedimentological perspective

G Shanmugam

doi:10.51710/jias.v39i1.243

Authors

G Shanmugam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51710/jias.v39i1.243

Abstract

Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists of all time, had a deep disdain for peer review. The peer-review process, introduced over a thousand years ago in Syria and fully formalized by the Royal Society of London during 1665-1752, is an integral part of quality control in publishing articles and in awarding research grants. However, there are many lingering problems, which include: 1) anointed experts, 2) blind peer reviews, 3) delays, 4) orthodoxy, 5) bias, 6) groupthink, 7) Peer rejection of ideas (including Nobel-Prize winners), 8) inconsistency, 9) politics, 10) fake peer review and plagiarism, 11) “Sham peer review” in the U.S. medical community, 12) settling old scores, 13) online publications, 14) acknowledgements, 15) controversies in geological sciences, and 16) imbalance of peer reviewers in the biomedical research. Transparency, which is the underpinning trait of science journalism, is lost in the secrecy of blind peer review. Under the blind peer review, there are at least eight examples of scientific papers that were rejected before going on to win a Nobel Prize. Furthermore, there are 33 striking cases of peer rejection in science, including the notorious theory of “continental drift” by Alfred Wegener. My own examples of papers in process sedimentology and petroleum geology show that the same manuscript was rejected by one journal, but was accepted by another, suggesting that the blind peer review is obsolete. A solution is to adopt an Open Peer Review (OPR). Barring an open peer review, an alternative path is to publishing the entire peer-review comments and recommended decisions of all reviewers (anonymous and identified) at the end of a paper. This practice not only would force the anonymous reviewer to be objective and accountable but also would allow the entire peer-review process to be transparent.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Al Kawi, M. Z. (1997). History of medical records and peer review. Ann Saudi Med. 17: 277-278.

Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva J.A. (2019). Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers? Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321.

Al-Mousawi, Y. (2020). A brief history of peer review. F1000Research. https://blog.f1000.com/2020/01/31/a-brief-history-of-peer-review/

Ajlouni, K.M., Al-Khalidi, U. (1997). Medical records, patient outcome and peer review in eleventh century Arab medicine, Ann Saudi Med. 17: 326-327.

Bagnold, R.A. (1962). Auto-suspension of transported sediment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 265: 315–319.

Baldwin, M. (2015). Credibility, peer review, and nature, 1945-1990. Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 69(3): 337-52. doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029.

Baldwin, M. (2019). Peer Review, Encyclopedia of the History of Science (October 2019), https://doi.org/10.3478/qsrm-qw12 accessed 7 December 2021.,

Belluz, J. Hoffman, S. (2015). Let's stop pretending peer review works. https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems Retrieved 5 December, 2021.

Benos D J, Bashari E, Chaves J M, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG and Zotov A. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review, Advances in Physiology Education 31(2): 145-52.

Biagioli, M. (2002). "From book censorship to academic peer review". Emergences. 12 (1): 11–45. doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435. S2CID 143577949

Bouma, A.H. (1962). Sedimentology of some flysch Deposits: A Graphic Approach to Facies Interpretation, 168. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bouma, A.H., DeVries, M.B., Stone, C.G., (1997). Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma, discussion. AAPG Bulletin 81: 470-472.

Braben, D. W. (2020). Scientific Freedom. Stripe Press 256 p. ISBN-10 ? : ? 0578675919

Briggs, G., Cline, L.M., (1967). Paleocurrents and source areas of Late Paleozoic sediments of the Ouachita Mountains, Southeastern Oklahoma. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37: 985-1000.

Chen, C. (2021). Why choose signed & published peer review? https://plos.org/published-peer-review-history/ Retrieved 3 December, 2021.

Scissor, A. 2016. Peer Review: Troubled from the start. Nature 532: 306-308.

Coleman Jr., J.L., (1997). Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma, Discussion. AAPG Bulletin 81: 466-469.

Curran, W. J. (1989). Legal immunity for medical peer-review programs. New policies explored. N Engl J Med. 320: 233-235.

D'Agostino, A.E., Jordan, D.W., (1997). Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma, Discussion. AAPG Bulletin 81: 473-475.

Dinerstein, C. (2017). The Surprising History of Peer Review. American council on Scientific Health. https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/02/surprising-history-peer-review-11888

Efron, N. (2019). The shame of rejection (not). Editorial. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 102: 537–540.

Elsevier, (2021). What is peer review? https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

Gao, J., Zhou, T. (2017). Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review. Nature. 2017 May 31;546(7656):33. doi: 10.1038/546033a. PMID: 28569809.

The Geological Society. (2011). House of Commons S& T Committee: Peer Review. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/peerreview Retrieved 10 December, 2021.

Goldberg, B. A. (1984). The peer review privilege: a law in search of a valid policy. Am J Law Med. 10: 151-167

Gonthier, E.G., J.-C. Faugères, and D.A.V. Stow. (1984). Contourite facies of the faro drift, Gulf of Cadiz. In Fine-grained sediments: deep-water processes and facies, 15, ed. D.A.V. Stow and D.J.W. Piper, 275–292. Geological Society of London Special Publication.

Hofffman, A. J. (2022). A modest proposal to the peer review process: a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in the assessment of scholarly communication. Research Ethics 18(1): 84–91.

Horton, R. (2000). Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up. Medical Journal of Australia 172: 148-149.

Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf. Retrieved 22 December 2021.

Jana, S. (2019). A history and development of peer-review process. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 66: 152-162.

Justice A.C., Cho M.K., Winker M.A., Berlin J.A., Rennie D. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial, JAMA. 280(3):240-242.

Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC (Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) 25(3): 227–243.

Kennefick, D. (2005). Einstein Versus the Physical Review. Physics Today 58, 9, 43 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2117822

Kirkland, D.W. (2014). Role of Hydrogen Sulfide in the Formation of Cave and Karst Phenomena in the Guadalupe Mountains and Western Delaware Basin, New Mexico and Texas. Carlsbad (NM): National Cave and Karst Research Institute Special Paper 2: 77

Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., Trinquart, L. (2016). The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLOS ONE 11(11): e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387

Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th century scientific journalism. JAMA, 263: 1321-1322.

Kuenen, Ph.H. (1966). Experimental turbidite lamination in a circular flume. Journal of Geology 74: 523–545.

Lindzen, Richard S. (2010). Global Warming: How to approach the science. Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response November 17, 2010.

https://republicansscience.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/111710Lindzen.pdf Retrieved 1 December, 2021

Liumbruno, G. M., Velati, C., Pasaualetti, P., Franchini M. (2012). “How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon.” Blood Transfus, 11(2): 217-226.

Lowe, D.R. (1982). Sediment gravity flows: II. Depositional models with special reference to the deposits of high- density turbidity currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52: 279–297.

Lowe, D.R., (1997). Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma, discussion. AAPG Bulletin 81: 460-465.

Macdonald, F. (2016). 8 Scientific Papers That Were Rejected Before Going on to Win a Nobel Prize ncealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize Retrieved 11 December 2021.

Marr, J.G., P.A. Harff, G. Shanmugam, and G. Parker. (2001). Experiments on subaqueous sandy gravity flows, the role of clay and water content in flow dynamics and depositional structures. GSA Bulletin 113: 1377–1386.

Mazumder, R. (ed). (2016). Sediment provenance, Elsevier, Paperback ISBN: 9780128033869, 614 p.

McGiffert M. (1988). Is Justice Blind? An Inquiry into Peer Review. Scholarly Publishing, 20(1): 43-48.

McPherson, J.G., Shanmugam, G., Moiola, R.J. (1987). Fan-deltas and braid deltas: varieties of coarse-grained deltas. Geol. Soc. America Bulletin, 99: 331–340.

Middleton, G.V. (1967). Experiments on density and turbidity currents: III. Deposition of sediment. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 4: 475–505.

Middleton, G.V. (1993). Sediment deposition from turbidity currents. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 21: 89–114.

Middleton, G.V., and M.A. Hampton. (1973). Sediment gravity flows: mechanics of flow and deposition. In Turbidites and deep-water sedimentation, ed. G.V. Middleton and A.H. Bouma, 1–38. Anaheim: SEPM Pacific Section Short Course.

Middleton, G.V., Southard, J.B., (1977). Mechanics of Sediment Movement. Short Course No. 3, Eastern section of SEPM, Binghamton, NY, p. 10.2.

Pfifferling, J. H., Meyer, D.N., Wang, C. J. (2008). Sham peer review: perversions of a powerful process. Physician Exec. 34: 24-29.

Pierson, T.C., and J.E. Costa. (1987). Arheologic classification of subaerial sediment-water flows. In Debris flows/avalanches: process, recognition, and mitigation, VII, ed. J.E. Costa and G.F. Wieczorek, 1–12. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology.

Postma, G., W. Nemec, and K.L. Kleinspehn. (1988). Large floating clasts in turbidites: a mechanism for their emplacement. Sedimentary Geology 58: 47–61.

Racki, G. (2003). "Hot" articles in modern sedimentary research: Updated list. IAS Newsletter, 187, August 2003, 3-5.

Ricón, José Luis, “Peer rejection in science”, Nintil (2020-12-02), https://nintil.com/discoveries-ignored/. Retrieved 10 December 2021

Ronnie, D. (2003). Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, pp. 118-129

Ronnie, D, Flanagin, A. (2018). Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses". JAMA. 319 (4): 350–353. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.20606. Retrieved 10 December 2021

Roy, S. C. (2021). Peer review process – its history and evolution. In Science and Culture · 87 (1-2): 36-44DOI: 10.36094/sc.v87.2021.Peer_Review_Process.Roy.36 Retrieved 10 December 2021.

Sanders, J.E. (1965). Primary sedimentary structures formed by turbidity currents and related resedimentation mechanisms. In Primary sedimentary structures and their hydrodynamic interpretation, 12, ed. G.V. Middleton, 192–219. SEPM Special Publication.

Shanmugam, G., (1985). Significance of coniferous rain forests and related Organic matter in generating commercial quantities of oil, Gippsland basin, Australia: AAPG Bulletin, 69, 1241 1254.

Shanmugam, G., (1986). Conventional wisdom and scientific progress. Geology (1986) 14 (8): 718.

Shanmugam, G. (1996). High-density turbidity currents: are they sandy debris flows? J. Sediment. Res. 66, 2–10.

Shanmugam, G. (1997). The Bouma Sequence and the turbidite mind set. Earth-Sci. Rev. 42: 201–229.

Shanmugam, G. (2000). 50 years of the turbidite paradigm (1950s–1990s): deep-water processes and facies models––a critical perspective. Marine and Petroleum Geology 17: 285–342.

Shanmugam, G. (2002). Ten turbidite myths. Earth-Science Reviews 58: 311–341.

Shanmugam, G. (2006a). Deep-water Processes and Facies Models: Implications for Sandstone Petroleum Reservoirs, Amsterdam: Elsevier. 476 p.

Shanmugam, G., (2006b). The tsunamite problem. J. Sediment. Res. 76, 718-730.

Shanmugam, G. (2012a). Process-sedimentological challenges in distinguishing paleo-tsunami deposits. In: Kumar, A. Nister, I. (Eds.), Paleo-tsunamis. Natural Hazards, 63: 5–30.

Shanmugam, G. (2012b). New perspectives on deep-water sandstones: origin, recognition, initiation, and reservoir quality, 9. In Handbook of petroleum exploration and production, Amsterdam: Elsevier. 524 p.

Shanmugam, G. (2015). The landslide problem. J. Palaeogeogr. 4: 109–166.

Shanmugam, G. (2016a). The contourite problem. In “Sediment provenance”, ed. R. Mazumder, 183–254. Amsterdam: Elsevier Chapter 9.

Shanmugam, G., (2016b). The seismite problem. J. Palaeogeogr. 5 (4), 318-362.

Shanmugam, G., (2017). Contourites: physical oceanography, process sedimentology, and petroleum geology. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 44 (2), 183-216.

Shanmugam, G. (2018). The hyperpycnite problem. Journal of Palaeogeography 7 (3): 197–238.

Shanmugam, G. (2020). Gravity flows: types, definitions, origins, identification markers, and problems. Journal of Indian Association of Sedimentologists 37 (2): 61–90.

Shanmugam, G. (2021a). "The turbidite-contourite-tidalite-baroclinite-hybridite problem: orthodoxy vs. empirical evidence behind the “Bouma Sequence”. Jour. Palaeogeography, v. 10, No. 1. Online https://doi.org/10.1186/s42501-021-00085-

Shanmugam, G. (2021b). Mass transport, gravity flows, and bottom currents: Downslope and alongslope processes and deposits. Elsevier, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9780128225769, p. 608.

Shanmugam, G. (2022a). Sedimentary Basins: Processes, deposits, palaeogeography, and challenges. Keynote Lecture, 37th Convention of the Indian Association of Sedimentologists, University of Jammu, India, April 27, Wednesday, 10:00 AM (Jammu, India Time), 2022, Virtual Platform. In: IAS Abstract volume. P. 6-26.

Shanmugam, G. (2022b). 150 Years (1872-2022) of research on deep-water processes, deposits, settings, triggers, and deformation: A difficult domain of progress, dichotomy, diversion, omission, and groupthink. Keynote Lecture. 5th International Conference on Palaeogeography. May 14, Saturday, 9:50-10:20 AM (Beijing Time), 2022, Wuhan, China. 108 p

Shanmugam, G. (2022c). Book review of “River Planet 2021“by Martin Gibling. Journal of Palaeogeography, 11 (1) (in press).

Shanmugam, G. (2022d). Comment on “Ichnological analysis: A tool to characterize deep-marine processes and sediments” by Francisco J. Rodriguez-Tovar [Earth-Science Reviews, 228 (2022), 104014]. Earth-Science Reviews. In Press.

Shanmugam, G. (2022e). Comment on “A new classification system for mixed (turbidite-contourite) depositional systems: Examples, conceptual models and diagnostic criteria for modern and ancient records” by S. Rodrigues, F.J. Hernández-Molina, M. Fonnesu, E. Miramontes, M. Rebesco, D. C. Campbell [Earth-Science Reviews (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104030. Earth-Science Reviews. in press.

Shanmugam, G., and Benedict III, G.L. (1983). Manganese distribution in the carbonate fraction of shallow and deep marine lithofacies, Middle Ordovician, eastern Tennessee. Sediment. Geology, 35: 159–175.

Shanmugam, G., and Higgins, J. B., (1988). Porosity enhancement from chert dissolution beneath Neocomian unconformity: Ivishak formation, North Slope, Alaska: AAPG Bulletin 72: 523 535.

Shanmugam, G., T.D. Spalding, and D.H. Rofheart. (1993). Process sedimentology and reservoir quality of deep- marine bottom-current reworked sands (sandy contourites): an example from the Gulf of Mexico. AAPG Bulletin 77: 1241–1259.

Shema, H. (2014). The Birth of Modern Peer Review. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/

Retrieved 4 December, 2021

Slatt, R.M., Weimer, P., Stone, C.G., (1997). Reinterpretation of depositional processes in a classic flysch sequence (Pennsylvanian Jackfork Group), Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas and Oklahoma, discussion. AAPG Bulletin 81: 449-459.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Jour. Royal Soc Medicine. 99(4): 178–182

Spier R. (2002). The History of the Peer-review Process. Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358.

Steel, E., Simms, A.R., Warrick, J., Yokoyama, Y., (2016). Highstand shelf fans: the role of buoyancy reversal in the deposition of a new type of shelf sand body. GSA Bull. 128: 1717-1724.

Stow, D.A.V., and J.-C. Faugères. (2008). Contourite facies and the facies model. In Contourites, ed. M. Rebesco and A. Camerlenghi, 223–256. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D et al. (2017). A multidisciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1151 (doi: 10.12688/ f1000research.12037.3)

Triggle, C.R., Triggle D.J. (2007). What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"? Vasc Health Risk Manag. 3(1): 39-53.

Van der Lingen, G. J. (2018). Post-modernism and climate change. J. Ind. Ass. Sed., 35 (2): 13-32.

Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., Black, N. (1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA, 280(3):234-237.

Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175): 23-27.

Vine, F. J. Matthews, D. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature. 199 (4897): 947–949. Bibcode:1963Natur.199..947V. doi:10.1038/199947a0.

Vyas, D., Hozain, A. E. (2014). Clinical peer review in the United States: history, legal development and subsequent abuse. World J Gastroenterol; 20(21): 6357-6363

Wegener, A. (1912). Die Herausbildung der Grossformen der Erdrinde (Kontinente und Ozeane), auf geophysikalischer Grundlage. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen (in German). 63: 185–195, 253–256, 305–309. Presented at the annual meeting of the German Geological Society, Frankfurt am Main (6 January 1912).

Wennerås, C., World, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387: 341-343.

Wikipedia, 2021. Scholarly peer review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review Retrieved 4 December, 2021

Wolfram, D., Wang, P., Hembree, A., Park, H. (2020). Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics (2020) 125:1033–1051 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4 Retrieved 12 December 2021.