Dear Colleagues,
we recently found a publication in PLOS ONE, detailing results which we believed to be impossible after merely reading the abstract.
We then spend about 3 months researching their claims and are now sure that there are fundamental flaws in the study.
We would like to publish these results, but are not sure how to go about it considering the following concerns:
1) we previously tried to publish a research article in PLOS ONE which showed that a previously published software produced incorrect results while our new implementation for the same purpose was producing correct results (rejected due to no advance in the field)
2) The letters to the editor in PLOS ONE seem to be simple online comments without scientific merit.
3) The current scientific evaluations systems in place around the world force us to produce SCI indexed publications so 2) is not an option for us since we spent a significant amount of work to prove that the publication is problematic.
Basically, it must be shown that there is a problem in a paper published in PLOS ONE, but PLOS ONE was previously not interested in publishing similar articles showing flaws in existing publications (in that instance the problem was in a paper publishes in BMC Bioinformatics; how much stronger would they reject a claim to flaws within their own journal?). Additionally, we need to publish in indexed journals and cannot leave uncitable and unindexed online commentary.
What experiences did you make with these issues?
Where do you think can we place our research?
Thank you.
If you are really sure that the PLOS ONE paper is flawed, you could post a comment on https://pubpeer.com/
This would at least draw attention to the possible flaws in the paper(s) in question.
Thank you, I have not been aware of pubpeer and if all other fails and no good solution comes up, I'll consider that option.
I'm also suggesting posting this on PubPeer. The discussion may also force PLoS ONE or encourage other journals to consider publishing your article, so if you see after posting it on PubPeer that it starts to generate comments pro and contra, get taken up by science blogs etc. you will know how to proceed further.
Dear Jens,
you should publish your work in another journal proving that their resuts are wrong. In my opinion there is no other way that people will take this more seriously. Given the competition in publishing but also the dislike of researchers for other researchers make sure that your commets sound constructive and reject another set of results by proving them wrong. There are always other sides to the same issue in science, that has been shown before.
But another tip is not to get too frustrated about this, i have come accross papers that cannot be repeated again and believe me it happens many times, but i try not to get too wound up about it.
Hope that helps.
Best wishes,
Nikos
In my own opinion you should get your paper published elsewhere especially if the journal is properly indexed in public domain. This is what you will do, make reference to the earlier publication constructively and counter the claims with your facts and previous estalished information that supports your findings which is contrary to the PLOS pubication. Your readers will red in between the lines. There is a need to set things straight and avoiding misleading the public with wrong information. You see, reviewers are people like us, some are fortunate while some are priviledged. A case like this happened before about integrons and super intergons. Hall et al and mazel et al. There were information about superintergrons published by Mazel et al ( i can't recollect the correct speling of this authors name) but at the end Hall et al published an article to show readers some information that are likely incorrect about the earlier one by Mazel This very important to set the record straight.
Instead of relieving me to find that you make similar experiences, it actually highlights a very important flaw in current scientific discourse.
It is easy to publish something 'novel'. However, when it cannot be reproduced, or it can be shown that it is flawed, there are many loops to jump through before records can be set straight.
Often, the original work remains in place and the works contesting its conclusions are difficult to find. Pubmed for example allows to add comments so sometimes (if you choose to/or can use pubmed) you may be able to find cautious commentary (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21931358). Of course, having such commentary distributed over various placed on the web is contra-productive and a central place should be available where all original articles must link in case contesting information is found.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher