Good science is not done by popular vote but science journal publishing is and should be done by popular vote?!?

Eugen G Tarnow  December 21 2009 10:37:42 AM

I was never an editor but publishing a manuscript according to the popular vote of the reviewers makes a lot of sense.  It does not necessarily make for good science but it is really hard to figure out what is good science!

A paper that has a large number of positive reviews will statistically reflect well on the journal and a paper with few positive reviews will reflect badly.  Good science is not necessarily done by popular vote but perhaps that is not the point.  For example, Science and Nature had a problem a few years ago when they published made-up papers by somebody at Bell Labs.  The papers were very popular.  His manager was thrilled but the smarter people at Bell Labs knew the papers were made-up.  They kept quiet  because they did not want to cross the manager.  I don't think the reviews of his papers were ever published but my guess is that he got mostly glowing reviews and only once in a while a bad review.  Science and Nature did not look good but on the other hand their circulation probably increased because of the papers and because of the controversy.  So even if the science was wrong, financially the decision to go with popular vote was correct nevertheless.

In terms of the impact factor of a journal, going with the popular vote is probably correct as well.  A positive review may be from a friend of the author and he would be likely to cite the paper - thus increasing the impact factor.  

Is there any reason from the editor's point of view NOT to go with the reviewer popular vote?  I can't think of one!

• Comments [0]