565752 research-article2014
SJP0010.1177/1403494814565752Short TitleScandinavian Journal of Public Health
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2015; 43: 1
Editorial
On peer review – the cornerstone of scientific publication
‘You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the paper, it’s all made up and untrue’. – ‘How do you know?’ – ‘I read it in the paper’. A recent and already famous experiment on publication of research papers was done by John Bohannon and the result from his study was published in Science last year [1]. What Bohannon did was to make up an experimental study on the effects of a drug against cancer. The drug was supposed to be extracted from lichen. The fake author submitting the paper was called Ocorreafoo Cobange and was said to represent the Wassee Institute of Medicine. In fact the author was made up and no such institute exists. John Bohannon, who made up the experiment and wrote the report, then submitted the paper to 300 journals. Half of the journals accepted the paper, although the report was so full of flaws and mistakes that ‘any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge … should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings’. Bohannon’s comment is that: ‘the paper should have been promptly rejected. The experiments were so hopelessly flawed and the results meaningless’.
The task for the editors of the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health is to attract submissions, read all incoming papers, assess the context and scope and then to find experts for the peer review. The editors are all seniors with many years of own research and of reviewing for other journals; however, there are always scientific fields where the editors have to rely heavily on other experts for an assessment and evaluation of the study at hand. The reward for reviewing is generally the pride and the knowledge that others will – anonymously – review papers from me and my research group as a favour towards me as a reviewer. This may seem like a lean reward; however, this is the way we are currently carrying on and for the moment is the most efficient and effective method to keep a reasonable quality in our journal, now with a citation index of 3, thanks to authors and reviewers! With great thanks to all reviewers from the Editor! Reference [1] Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 2013;342:60–65.
© 2014 the Nordic Societies of Public Health DOI: 10.1177/1403494814565752
Downloaded from sjp.sagepub.com at SUNY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER on April 17, 2015
Ingvar Karlberg
SJP0010.1177/1403494814565752Short TitleScandinavian Journal of Public Health
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 2015; 43: 1
Editorial
On peer review – the cornerstone of scientific publication
‘You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the paper, it’s all made up and untrue’. – ‘How do you know?’ – ‘I read it in the paper’. A recent and already famous experiment on publication of research papers was done by John Bohannon and the result from his study was published in Science last year [1]. What Bohannon did was to make up an experimental study on the effects of a drug against cancer. The drug was supposed to be extracted from lichen. The fake author submitting the paper was called Ocorreafoo Cobange and was said to represent the Wassee Institute of Medicine. In fact the author was made up and no such institute exists. John Bohannon, who made up the experiment and wrote the report, then submitted the paper to 300 journals. Half of the journals accepted the paper, although the report was so full of flaws and mistakes that ‘any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge … should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings’. Bohannon’s comment is that: ‘the paper should have been promptly rejected. The experiments were so hopelessly flawed and the results meaningless’.
The task for the editors of the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health is to attract submissions, read all incoming papers, assess the context and scope and then to find experts for the peer review. The editors are all seniors with many years of own research and of reviewing for other journals; however, there are always scientific fields where the editors have to rely heavily on other experts for an assessment and evaluation of the study at hand. The reward for reviewing is generally the pride and the knowledge that others will – anonymously – review papers from me and my research group as a favour towards me as a reviewer. This may seem like a lean reward; however, this is the way we are currently carrying on and for the moment is the most efficient and effective method to keep a reasonable quality in our journal, now with a citation index of 3, thanks to authors and reviewers! With great thanks to all reviewers from the Editor! Reference [1] Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 2013;342:60–65.
© 2014 the Nordic Societies of Public Health DOI: 10.1177/1403494814565752
Downloaded from sjp.sagepub.com at SUNY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER on April 17, 2015
Ingvar Karlberg
