ResearchGate: Bogus impact on the ego.

Every week I am bombarded by emails that are trying to sell me something personal (sometimes very personal), lab equipments, or reagents. There also are incessant chains of seemingly good-natured invitations to attend free-webinars. I promptly delete them without opening to see the contents. However, I stop at one email that is sent by ResearchGate, ‘a social networking site for scientists and researchers’. I have a strong urge to delete it without looking at the content but I am reluctant to do that. I know that the email contains my latest ‘Impact Score’. Instead of deleting the message, I anxiously click on it to view my score wondering whether this week I fared well or not.

On most occasions my score has remained unchanged. However, there have been days when the score dropped a few decimal points. It was agonizing to watch that happen. The immediate response was to open the link in the browser to check what happened. Inside my head, I know that the score is dropped because there were fewer ‘hits’ or views of my research papers. But the scientist inside me looks for verification of the phenomenon, and ResearchGate promptly provides me with a graph to support its scoring system. In the absence of any external reference, my graph can shoot through the roof or drop to the baseline (zero) by only one ‘view’ of my research papers.

What is this graph? How is it scored? Who are the viewers? Does the site record all the views of my research paper on the web or only the ResearchGate website? Are my papers curated on the ResearchGate site? Do the views only from the members count? There are at least three different scores for each researcher seen on the website, what are they? You get a ‘Total impact’ point, then an RG Score and an ‘Impact point’. How do you make any sense of it? With all these questions, I don’t think it is clear what they are scoring and to what end.

As for the impact scores, several lab technicians have much larger impact scores than some Principal Investigators. These technicians never published a first author paper or a senior author paper. Yet, they score big in ResearchGate scheme. What impact should we consider here? It is not that a lab technician’s research contribution is not important, but if RG score is mere ‘contribution score’ then it is contaminating the scores of ‘impactful researchers’.

The ResearchGate web site claims that it was started by scientists to ‘Connect, collaborate and discover scientific publications, jobs and conferences’. Then why score their research impact in a manner which does not make sense to anyone? Are the founders of ResearchGate network too smart to have figured out that all humans, whether lay people or trained scientists, have the weakness of vanity and are willing to take an ego trip with bogus scores?

Coming soon: Don’t be an asshole reviewer!

Gather the reviews that you got for your research papers and grant applications. Everyone has one or more of those idiotic reviewers’ comments. Bring them out to have some fun. 🙂

Pope’s resignation and scientific research.

Pope Resignation_bYou may wonder what has Pope Benedict’s resignation to do with scientific research. Well, not much. But the discussions that followed his resignation may be relevant.

A prominent question arose whether there would be major changes after this pope is gone. Analysts looked at the roster of the College of Cardinals and observed that the cardinals are relics of the past. They were inducted by either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict. They espouse the old ideas of their ‘mentors’. So the consensus emerged that given the pedigree and age of the cardinals, major reforms cannot be expected. Bummer!

Scientific research establishment is a living fossil.  The scientific establishment, like the Church, is recalcitrant to change and resistant to new ideas.  The policies, review processes, money allocation, research activities, hiring of scientists, publication of research papers, and the decisions on tenure and promotion of faculty are conducted in the spirit of medieval feudal system.

A scientist is supposed to push the boundaries of knowledge.  Unfortunately, old duds on review committees’ rosters are impervious to new ideas.  Some are mean and greedy who have outlived their scientific utility and are unable to grasp the explosion of knowledge in  modern science.  Many are insecure and are bitterly critical of new developments yet they pretend to be broad-minded.  Others are fools who still hold on to the idea of ‘hypothesis driven research’ as sacred.  Together, they have stymied the progress of science and emergence of new ideas more than any politician could ever do.  Scientific progress cannot be achieved at its fullest if the research is to be judged by scientists entrenched in their archaic research ideas.

The question is not whether the old scientists sitting at the helm of affairs should be replaced by the young blood, but how soon it should be done.  Take action, write to your elected representative.  Every voice counts.

How to steal scientific ideas.

Locked drqwerScience is a business of ideas. By its very definition, researchers are required to generate new ideas. However, the ideas do not pop up in vacuum. Astute researchers have to master the literature, learn where the gaps in the current field of research exist and then find a feasible way to fill those gaps.

The way the current research training is done, the majority of researchers eventually become rigid in their ideas. Their research becomes dull and boring. In the name of ‘detailed study’ they keep burrowing deeper into descriptive research. Years of battles with paper publications, failed grant applications and stress of obtaining tenure and load of teaching wears them out. Only few remain as enthusiastic as they were in the beginnings of their career. Of those who remain enthusiastic, most are not driven by scientific inquiry but by the social and political thrill of it.

Surviving on the stolen ideas of trainees and postdocs becomes a viable means of their academic lives. But they have to do it in a sophisticated way. Here are a few simple ways to do it:

1. ‘Encourage’ every trainee applicant to write a 2 page mock research proposal. This is a shotgun approach whereby anyone showing an interest in your research can be asked to provide idea of what to do. You then take those ideas and adopt them in your current research.

2. Group discussions/brain storming in lab. Pretend that you are helping people bring out their best. Make them bust their ass to beat each other’s ideas and then pick all the good ones as your own.

3. Once the trainee presents a great idea with some interesting preliminary data, kill his/her enthusiasm by saying that the idea is useless, not relevant, premature, too complex for the current state of science etc. During the next few months, gently incorporate the idea in your casual talks. Finally, give the project to someone other than the originator of the idea as your own.

4.  Make your trainees write a fellowship proposal. Incorporate those questions as an aim in your own grant. Pretend that it was all your own to begin with.

There are many more subtle ways you can steal the idea of your trainees to call your own. With the years of toiling under your own mentor, you have consciously or unconsciously picked up techniques to put down your colleagues and steal intellectual property. Now it is your turn to perpetuate it. Do it with style, do it with authority and when challenged, you can always say that all data and ideas belong to NIH or the institution. You only happen to be an agent of theft (read hired thief).

There are other better ways as you climb up the ladder of your academic career. You can steal from other labs by being a reviewer. Oh, don’t give me the shit about ethics and confidentiality. You know what I mean.

If everything else fails, you can also resort to saying that ideas are not novel it is the ability to materialize them matters.

Lawyers are universally loathed for their ability to fudge the truth. In reality, scientists can be worse than lawyers. They wear the cloak of honesty and objectivity, but the unscrupulous ones are constantly twisting the truth, presenting half-truth, and backstabbing with hidden dagger of greed and deception.

One PI =One R01 grant.

The great economic crisis in the Western world has affected the academic and research institutions.  One of the major funding agencies NIH has seen effective funding cut that has translated in reduction of both number of research grants and the amount of money apportioned to them.  The situation has reached a crisis level.  Yet, there seems to be no effect on the ‘higher echelons’ of the research community.

Research dollars are disproportionately distributed among researchers.  Although we resent to the notion that 1% of the US population possesses 90% of the wealth, we do not react the same way to the financial disparity in scientific research.  Relatively few scientists have monopolized the major chunk of tax-payers’ dollars while a large number of competent and innovative scientists do not.  This needs to end!

In these difficult times, everyone is required to sacrifice a little.  We ought to ensure that publicly funded scientific research is distributed to all competent scientists and not only to the members of scientific power broker cartel.  There is no obvious reason why a researcher should have more than one R01 grant, especially during tough economic situation.  By adopting One PI= One R01, the NIH can support thousands more new scientists and diversify the scientific research base.  By doing so, NIH will promote innovative research to catalyze scientific growth.

We should also understand that NIH cannot make a law.  To achieve One PI=One R01, we have to inform and educate our legislators of the benefits of this formula.  Write to your House Representative and Senator asking them to consider broadening the productive and innovative scientific base by expanding the participation by new scientists.  Ask them to implement One PI= One R01 formula.  There are numerous benefits of One PI= One R01 to the scientific community. It will improve educational standards of the universities and will bring back talent to our educational institutions.  This is the only way to assure that dwindling scientific impact is regained.

2011 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,200 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Scientific Research: A Ponzi Scheme.

Screenshot_3_10_13_6_28_PMRecently, a friend and colleague blurted out, “Man, academic scientific research is a Ponzi scheme”.  At first I laughed at this but soon I realized his point of view.  My friend is primarily a clinician.  His training and interest in understanding the bases of disease and hope of discovering new therapeutic targets had brought him in laboratory research.

He quickly realized that there was a chasm between his lofty ideals of studying a biological phenomenon and his mentor’s single-minded interest in using his data for fetching money.   My friend’s enthusiasm and motivation that had been his strength in conquering the daily grind of the lab work and failure of experiments were suddenly overcome by despair.  He is a good scientist who carefully designs and plans his experiments and is resourceful and skilled to execute them well.  Unfortunately, he decided to return to the clinic without completing his research project.

Under ordinary situations I would not have thought much about his return to clinics. Such departures are not uncommon among physician scientists who do not like the long drawn battle of laboratory scientists against leaking gels, failing western blots, suboptimal reagents, and a long dark tunnel of uncertainty without any glimmer of light at the end.  Many do not see how abstract concepts of basic research could ever be translated into clinically relevant knowledge.  But our guy has the smarts.

Like a painful sliver his analogy of scientific research as a Ponzi scheme stuck in my head.  Of course, I am not immune to the widely publicized Bernie Merdoff’s case of financial bungling.   I googled Ponzi scheme to find that…

In a Ponzi scheme potential investors are wooed with promises of unusually large returns, usually attributed to the investment manager’s savvy, skill or some other secret sauce. (Reference:  The New York Times)

Scientific research indeed is like a Ponzi scheme.  A very small number of people (established investigators) entice a very large number of young people (investor) for a dream of a very large profit (Nobel Prize, glory, publication, publicity, creative satisfaction etc).  To keep the scheme running, they do tell the ‘fine prints’ that not everyone gets there, the harder you work the larger the reward.  Cynics call it ‘rat-race’.  But I think Ponzi scheme is a better description.

Of course, once in a while from this large pool of investors a few are selected to receive the big profit that was promised to all.  They are given awards, positions and attention.  Usually these are the mediocre lot. The reason for this favor is that these mediocre are either unsure about their abilities or are too sure about it.  They stay indebted to the generosity of the ‘system’ and to display their loyalty to the system, they propagate the same scheme.  This is the pyramid scheme taken to extreme.

Does this mean that there are no smart people in scientific research?  On the contrary, there is a large number of smart people who keep pushing the leading edge further and beyond.  They are the pioneers with true passion for advancing the knowledge.  They are the ones who are genuinely interested in understanding nature of things.  They are not wheeler-dealers who relentlessly try to fill round holes of their hypotheses with square pegs of data.

I am not sure whether my friend will ever return to laboratory research but with a simple remark he gave me a different point of view.  We all thrive on such diverse points of view in research and I think that he did shift my paradigm.

Profitable reviews: Nature Immunology defends reviews.

In one of my previous rantings (Click here), I wrote about how journals publish reviews to improve their impact factor. Now, in the recent issue of Nature Immunology (Click here for link), the editorial acquiesces:

“Because they are highly cited (on average, a review article is cited almost twice as often as a research paper), they help boost the impact factor of the journal.”

What the editorial does not mention is the trend that some glossy journals have adopted to publish special issues that predominantly contain reviews.

It also does not take into account the harm done by ‘expert reviews’ where an interpretation or speculation by an expert is perpetuated in the scientific literature as scientific facts. However, I would agree that scientists are responsible for testing the veracity of these ‘facts’, not the journals.

Author ranking system: ‘Impact factor’ of the last author.

AuthorshipWe all know that there is a very little room at the first author position on any scientific paper.  There can only be one name.  Even if two researchers equally contributed to the paper, only one name will appear at the front end of the author list.  According to the current convention, the other equal contributing author cannot put his name at front even on his own resume.  That’s a bummer!

Consider another scenario;  a young researcher who is the major contributor to the paper is on the way to become an independent researcher.  He writes the manuscript and has to decide the author list.  Whom should he put as first author? And the last author? Although there are collaborating scientists, their contribution is too small to grant first authorship.  In this case, the researcher takes the first authorship and also declares himself the corresponding author.  Problem solved!  Not exactly!  This researcher just lost a major point in becoming an expert in his field.

Both these cases illustrate an existing problem of author ranking in a paper.  It is a lesser known fact of scientific publication that funding agencies (including NIH), journals, and often the hiring authorities use softwares to rank the ‘impact factor’ of authors in a publication.  NIH uses such softwares to determine who are the experts in a research field.  These ‘experts’ are then invited to the study sections for reviewing grant applications.  Journals use these softwares to decide who could be potential reviewers for the manuscripts.

On the surface, the idea sounds reasonable.  However, there is a serious flaw in this reliance on softwares to select ‘experts’.  These softwares are mostly primitive and are not designed to rank contribution in multi-author papers.  They are highly biased towards the ‘senior author’  which they determine only by one criterion- the last position on the author list.  Selecting experts based on such faulty method may have ridiculous consequences.

Recently, a well established journal requested a newly minted postdoc to review a research manuscript.  The postdoc was thrilled by this opportunity and took the challenge.  However, we learnt that the scope and content of the manuscript was clearly beyond his expertise.  I don’t know what happened to the manuscript but I am glad to think that there are safeguards against such anomalies.  I must clarify that I am not against inviting new researchers to participate and contribute in the functioning of the scientific community.  However, this should be done with a deliberate choice by program officers and journal editors. It should not happen by mistake. Otherwise it will erode the confidence in validity of the process.

In case you are curious, a current ranking system used by the NIH, for example, gives highest score to the author whose name appears last on a paper.  The software considers the last author as senior author.  The next highest score goes to the first author.  Finally, it does not matter where your name is between the first and the last author, the software assigns you the same low score for ‘contributing authors’.

I see an irony here.  Traditionally, the last author is the senior author who directs the project and in most cases provides funding and laboratory space for the scientific work.  If you want to find out the experts, let common sense prevail- a simple Pubmed search should suffice.  Why do we need technological voodoo to assign complex scoring system to discover the known?

Scientific misconduct debate: The idea is getting traction.

We have all wondered about the debate over scientific misconduct and the utter lack of accountability demanded by the ‘system’. Earlier, I have written on this blog (Click here) that the privilege of using enormous amounts of public funds requires accountability from the scientists. Now, in the current issue of EMBO Reports, this idea has been featured by one of their editors (Click here). In addition, the journal commissioned at least three articles addressing different but related aspects of the rampant issues in contemporary scientific research.
Journals should not only concern themselves with the quality and validity of hypotheses, theories and data but they should also discuss how to improve the socio-economic framework of scientific research.  Discussing the ‘bread and butter’ issues of research are equally, if not more, important than vague policy matters.   At this point I should say that since the days of Frank Gannon as the editor of EMBO Reports, the journal has commendably highlighted the concerns of researchers.  Through advocacy of good research practices, the public trust can be won to improve funding.