More than one back story exists on
Shinya Yamanaka and his Nobel Prize, but one that has received little
attention this week also raises questions about hoary practice of
peer review and publication of research – not to mention the
awarding of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

“All's fair in love and war, they
say, but science is supposed to obey more noble ideals. New findings
are submitted for publication, the studies are farmed out to experts
for objective 'peer review' and the best research appears promptly
in the most prestigious journals. 

“Some stem cell biologists are crying
foul, however. Last year(2009), 14 researchers in this notoriously
competitive field wrote
to leading journals complaining of "unreasonable or
obstructive reviews". The result, they claimed, is that
'publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected.' 

“Triggered by this protest, New
Scientist scrutinised the dynamics of publication in the most
exciting and competitive area of stem
cell research, in which cells are 'reprogrammed' to
acquire the versatility of those of an early-stage embryo. In this
fast-moving field, where a Nobel prize is arguably at stake,
biologists are racing feverishly to publish their findings in top
journals. 

“Our analysis of more than 200
research papers from 2006 onwards reveals that US-based scientists
are enjoying a significant advantage, getting their papers published
faster and in more prominent journals (find
our data, methods and analyses here). 

“More mysterious, given his standing
in the field, is why two of Yamanaka's papers were among the 10 with
the longest lags. In the most delayed of all, Yamanaka reported that
the tumour-suppressing gene p53 inhibits the formation of
iPS cells. The paper took 295 days to be accepted. It was eventually
published by Nature in August 2009 alongside four similar
studies. 'Yamanaka's paper was submitted months before any of the
others,' complains Austin
Smith at the University of Cambridge, UK, who coordinated
the letter sent to leading journals. 

“Yamanaka suggests that editors may
be less excited by papers from non-US scientists, but may change
their minds when they receive similar work from leading labs in the
US. In this case, Hochedlinger submitted a paper similar to
Yamanaka's, but nearly six months after him. Ritu
Dhand, Nature's chief biology editor, says that each paper
is assessed on its own merits. Hochedlinger says he was unaware of
Yamanaka's research on p53 before publication.”

“A common criticism is that peer
review is biased towards well-established research groups and the
scientific status quo. Reviewers are unwilling to reject papers from
big names in their fields out of fear, and they can be hostile to
ideas that challenge their own, even if the supporting data is good.
Unscrupulous reviewers can reject papers and then quickly publish
similar work themselves.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/lESi4gQF2IA/yamanaka-and-frailty-of-peer-review.html