“Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed. The blame for this sad situation lies with the people who have imposed a publish-or-perish culture, namely research funders and senior people in universities,” writes pharmacology professor David Colquhoun.
In “Publish-or-Perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science,” published in the Guardian’s “Controversies” section in September 2011, Colquhoun addresses entrenched practices that reduce the quality of academic publishing and increase the temptation to exaggerate claims, manipulate statistics, and fabricate results. Colquhoun takes specific issue with quotas, significant rewards for publication volume, and the increasing number of academic journals that maintain low publication standards.
As an example, Colquhoun cites a study on acupuncture that concludes, “The addition of 12 sessions of five-element acupuncture to usual care resulted in improved health status and wellbeing that was sustained for 12 months.” Colquhoun points out that such a conclusion requires its authors to ignore that “acupuncture has at best a tiny and erratic effect on any of the outcomes that were measured.” The study’s lead author and the journal’s editor were invited to respond in the Guardian’s “Controversies” column format. There, the journal’s editor suggests the flaws resided within Colquhoun’s post-publication review rather than the study itself. The lead author cites the study’s “statistically significant” results but admitted “the average benefit was relatively small.”
Publish or Perish