Mike Jonas
A report has just been published by Springer Nature (the company that publishes Nature scientific journal among others), on a global survey of perceived bias in scholarly publishing:
Perceptions of fairness and bias in the scholarly publishing ecosystem: a global survey
In 2024, they invited submissions from researchers and received 11,866 responses, of which they analysed 8,485. They explain the use of a survey of perception rather than of empirical data: “Bias can be challenging to demonstrate empirically, so this report focuses on perceptions and personal experiences.“.
My submission would have been one of the 11,866, but I don’t know if it was in the 8,485.
My interest in bias, and my submission on bias, was in the area of field bias (their name for it) which is “preference for certain schools of thought or methods“. There have been numerous articles in WUWT about “pal review” and journal bias in climate science, so I am sure that everyone here will understand what I am talking about. In my submission, I referred to a paper that I submitted to a Springer journal and which was rejected after 11 months of review, with the editor personally telling me they did not want yet another paper critical of the climate models. This was from the editor of a journal which was not exactly renowned for publishing papers that were critical of the climate models. Naturally, I interpreted that as bias.
The Springer Nature survey defines bias as:
- Bias is a prejudice against or a preference for people based on a group they belong to, often resulting in discrimination or favouritism of those people when acted upon.
- Bias can be present against or for numerous attributes, such as certain countries, languages, perceived institutional prestige, seniority, gender, race, ethnicity, disciplines, political beliefs, etc.
- Bias can be conscious or unconscious.
Note that there is nothing in their definition of bias which refers to field bias.
It was very interesting to me, therefore, when the survey results, although predominantly based around regional bias, included the following:
That looks to me like 55% say there is pal review or similar, and 36% say there is field bias. Given Springer Nature‘s definition of bias, which indicated that they weren’t actually looking for field bias, that 36% is, to my mind, quite an impressive number. Bear in mind that the survey covered all fields of research, not just climate. Incidentally, the two categories above are not exclusive, so don’t add the two %’s together.
It is good that the perception of bias is now at least a bit out in the open, but what comes next? Springer Nature says:
“… Addressing bias is not only an ethical imperative, but it is also critical to ensuring a more complete and representative global knowledge base, which Springer Nature commits to building. These data underscore the need for publishers to proactively work on widening participation in the research publishing process, reducing bias, strengthening researcher trust, and ensuring that all research is assessed on its merits.”
I will believe it when I see it.
Mike Jonas has presented a topic that is timely, as we are witness to bias every day. “Conscious Bias” is lying. “Addressing Bias” is separating Science from a mixture of baseless opinions, and even Dishonesty and Derangement. Don’t wait for the non-science crowd to reform themselves.
Louis from Casablanca comes to mind: “We are shocked, shocked, to hear allegations of bias in our journals.”
Not sure if it is technically bias, an incline, but (R, R and R—Rediscovery, Repetition and Redundancy). I still read a fair number of marine science papers, mostly but not limited to biology. Open access is so common one would suspect that it means you pay for it, regardless. It amazes me from the few that I know well enough about that still require homework, but some power long resumes. Biology is much worse than the others, but some papers in all fields too often mostly just cite this century. It can seem like lip service but some are necessary from previous decades. Despite the increase in the larger number of authors, the increase in citations make one wonder if they actually study their literature. Like ‘ethics’ statements they often are supposed to state their contributions. As a good scientist otherwise one I knew and chastised admitted a ‘boilerplate’ introduction but didn’t include their equations.
Maybe this just adds to the excuse of too much literature, but my perception is that the ‘music’ of papers has changed.
Physics will outlast folly; though you may well have died or been bankrupted first.
I haven’t read the report. Perhaps some responses they report incorporate experience similar to mine.
I am known in a very small subfield of solid earth geophysics as an advocate for a particular mechanism to explain a number of related phenomena. Within this subfield I sense that a significant proportion of workers take my hypothesis and evidence seriously (I’ve been contributing papers for over forty years). There are counter explanations to mine which I largely accept as possible contributing factors, but secondary to the primary mechanism.
I prepared a new submission involving sifting through abundant pertinent data that few had looked at, combined with computer modeling. I made the mistake, however, of not looking closely at the journal editor’s own work. The MS was assigned to an assistant editor who sent it out to only one referee (unusual). Interestingly, the comments of the reviewer and assistant focused on the quality of the illustrations, not the underlying science, insisting on petty revisions. I iterated twice. Then the assistant sent the third version to the editor, who summarily rejected the paper for “quality reasons.” I had discovered (too late) that all three men were collaborators with two having a funded research project that explicitly rejected my hypothesis. One side effect of my work was to demonstrate that one of their fundamental assumptions is demonstrably mistaken.
I was not idle when not revising the MS, but continued analyzing and modeling the data, In the process I recognized a corollary effect that explained other, largely independent phenomena. Upon receiving the rejection, I quickly wrote a new manuscript incorporating the new corollary as well as the larger analysis, with entirely new illustrations. It was accepted by another journal shortly after submission.
Moral: Bias can reflect the funding dependencies of a research group. When it comes to climate change, that’s where all of the money is. (My research is not climate-related, nor funded by any agency.) One is unlikely to generate continued funding if the results do not conform with expectations of the funding source. Or, at the least, the results need to support the hypotheses that motivated the project.
The editor and assistant had an ongoing funded research project. Their bias was a combination of financial dependency as well as, one may assume, professional pride. In other words, bias is not always ideological, but sometimes practical or motivated by simple price.
“The editor and assistant had an ongoing funded research project. Their bias was a combination of financial dependency as well as, one may assume, professional pride. In other words, bias is not always ideological, but sometimes practical or motivated by simple price.”
Or simple vanity.
What gets me is the number of times, in fields I know a bit about, that someone trots out a “new” discovery that merely reiterates what I learned 45 years ago, and that often been known for years, if not decades, before hand.
Are modern “researchers” incapable of doing literature research to find out if something has already been done, or is this a result of the modern publish or perish environment?
I would put it down to the growing dependence on aibots in all publishing, and this is only going to get worse.
I suspect many “researchers” just aren’t that smart. Many should have become plumbers, electricians and other trade practitioners. Too many people going to college? Meanwhile, a huge shortage of those trade workers, causing their prices to be way too high.
Joseph, I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that plumbers, electricians, etc, aren’t smart.
I meant many researchers aren’t smart enough to be good researchers- which takes a certain type of intelligence. Trades people have a different kind of intelligence- more common sense oriented- but of course many of them could have gone into the academic/science world too if they had chosen to or their life situation allowed. I’m actually very impressed with plumbers and electricians. Whenever I’ve had any do any work for me, I watch them- not because I don’t trust them but because it gives me a chance to learn something- given that I know so little about those trades.
“Everybody’s ignorant, only on different subjects.” – Will Rogers
Nice to have you back
Been busy remodeling my house and gardening and I needed a break.
I sent a copy of a paper I wrote some years ago to a recent author of a similar work. He responded, without any remorse, that he was unaware of it. A similar thing happened maybe fifteen years ago involving an author with whom I knew from grad school; she never responded to my subsequent message. It’s not a new phenomenon. In either case, simple Internet search for similar work would have surfaced my paper. (In the latter case, she might have known of my paper but forgotten it, since her paper was more tangential to mine,)
They are paid to lie and lie they do.
“the editor personally telling me they did not want yet another paper critical of the climate models”
As if they’ve published so many papers critical of climate models- no need for any more.
If it was independent replication, aren’t they obliged to publish it?
I complained to the journal and they responded that they gave the editor total freedom.