Blogroll: The bad and the ugly

Editor’s note: As we continue to invite bloggers out there in the wild to compose our monthly Blogroll column, Mitchell Antalek penned the February 2015 column.

———-

Misinformation abounds, but bloggers are setting the record straight.

Science is often misrepresented — in advertising, in popular culture, and even in the press — and sometimes the facts don’t come out right. Ben Goldacre, who writes at Bad Science, describes his frustration regarding misleading press releases about scientific research. Indeed, it appears that sensationalism transcends all reporting disciplines. In an editorial in The BMJ, Goldacre addresses the issue of improving accountability in academic press releases.

Meanwhile the ever-watchful eyes of See Arr Oh, the pseudonymous blogger behind Just Like Cooking, caught a more whimsical example of bad science. The popular TV show Always Sunny aired an episode featuring some structures that eschew typical understandings of chemical bonding. See Arr Oh posits that “perhaps these ‘scientists’ should win a Nobel,” while coining the term “Wyoming nitrogen.”

There’s been a fair amount of recent discussion about how science is portrayed in respect to advertising decisions. Are terms like ‘non-GMO’ and ‘all-natural’ inherently loaded? Chad Jones, blogging and podcasting at The Collapsed Wavefunction, argues that while the intent of health ‘fads’ may be noble prima facie, they often devolve into dangerous pseudoscience. When hard facts come up against public relations, the facts are all too frequently abandoned.

On a final note, See Arr Oh, along with the rest of the chemblogging community, bid a heartfelt farewell to long-time contributors Carmen Drahl of Chemical and Engineering News and Paul Docherty of Totally Synthetic. Both Drahl and Docherty, without a doubt, helped to shape the chemistry blogosphere for the better while it was still in its infancy.

Written by Mitchell Antalek, who blogs at https://unemployedchemist.com/.

———-

[As mentioned in this post, we’re posting the monthly blogroll column here on the Sceptical Chymist. This is the February 2015 article]

Materials Girl: What now?

Editor’s note: This post was written in November 2014, near the start of the current school year.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

With graduation looming ahead (and a birthday this past Halloween), I have been pondering the great and terrible question of: What do I want to be when I grow up? Or, in more adult terms, what are my career aspirations? The short answer is that I have no clue. My younger self thought that I’d have everything figured out by the ripe old age of 27 — but alas, no.

Being a student has given me the luxury of relative stability and persistent short-term ‘career’ goals. Aside from research, grad student duties/hurdles have a distinct end: classes wrap up with finals every term, preliminary exams are a one-day ordeal (or two, for the unlucky; more, for the unworthy), and heaven help you if the 2 hour qualifying exam is failed. Once I step out of academia’s familiar bubble, life becomes significantly bigger and less defined. ‘Find a job’ is a simple instruction, but one that inevitably comes with countless questions and hours of searching (plus rejection and re-searching). It can even be daunting to choose between the broad categories of industry, academia, or government careers.

Before hyperventilation sets in, it helps to consider that I know several things. Literally, I’ve learned a handful of things about science and engineering. More figuratively, I have a few notions of what my future aspirations might be. My years as a student, TA, and graduate researcher have taught me much — in addition to pointing out the fact that I know just a miniscule iota of THINGS in general. I have an unshakable love for science, dabbling in the lab, and teaching/mentoring. Consolidating these into a clear path is the unfamiliar part, as is finding job postings that match the particular skill set I’ve acquired. (Not to worry, I’m told, just rely on networking and employer flexibility.) Status and wealth mean little to me. My drive is to do something scientifically interesting, and to do it well — provided there’s a good dash of challenge and relevance to the betterment of society. Good goals, I think, but still vague overall.

Owing to an unusually wide range of research projects and ensuing exposure to many experimental techniques, my CV might be summarized as ‘jack-of-all-trades and potential master-of-some’ or ‘not an idiot; eager to learn more’ (if you’ll excuse my traditionally morbid sense of humor). For now this is leading me to pursue jobs of various shape/form/size, while unsure of what I’d truly like to do.

Returning to the notion of having things figured out or not, I’ve lately been seeking out my ‘elders’ in various disciplines to discuss their career paths. Regardless of age, background, or position in life, there seems to be an underlying current of chance. Few individuals with STEM jobs have followed a predetermined path, or had specific goals for each step of their careers — they just pursued opportunities as they arose.

This gives me hope. Knowing my capabilities is groundwork for the future, even if the exact trajectory is in question. Major life changes are fast approaching, and all of us antsy doctoral candidates should revel in what’s ahead instead of dreading the unknown. Onwards, and upwards! (And now, back to writing things that aren’t blog posts.)

A blind date for peer review

When we ask a potential reviewer if they would be willing to referee a paper for Nature Chemistry, we tell them the title of the paper, who the authors are, and also send along the abstract to help them decide if it is really a paper that they are qualified to referee. If the person agrees to review for us, the manuscript that they have access to includes the names, affiliations and contributions of all of the authors.

Starting in February (the exact date is yet to be confirmed), we will offer authors the option of ‘blinding’ their submitted manuscripts; that is, removing their names and affiliations from the manuscript and supplementary information files such that — if the manuscript is selected for external review — the reviewers will not know who the authors of the paper are, or where they come from. Obviously this means that when we ask someone if they are willing to review for us, they will not be told who the authors are at that stage either (they will only be given the title and abstract of the paper).

It is entirely up to the authors of each paper whether they wish to choose this double-blind option or stick with the single-blind process that we, and many other chemistry journals, use now. Closer to the time when the double-blind option becomes available, we will post instructions on how authors should prepare their manuscripts should they wish them to be evaluated in this way. It’s not just a simple matter of deleting the author list from the start of the manuscript file (don’t forget to check the ‘document properties’ hidden in the depths of a Word menu…).

Some other Nature-branded journals already have double-blind peer review as an option: Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change started offering it in the middle of 2013, and Nature Nanotechnology joined the club in late 2014. If you want to find out more, all of those journals have written about the topic of double-blind peer review:

Double-blind peer review (Nature Geoscience Editorial, 2013)
Blind faith (Nature Climate Change Editorial, 2013)
Peer-review variations (Nature Geoscience Editorial, 2014)
Double-blind peer review (Nature Nanotechnology Editorial, 2014)
Double-blind under review (ReadCube link) (Nature Nanotechnology Thesis article by Alastair Brown, 2014)

So, is double-blind peer review for you?