评论
打印
The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today.
总主编马西娅·麦克娜特今天宣布：《科学》杂志在同行评阅之外又增加一轮数据审查。
The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings.
数据分析中出现的基本错误致使许多出版的研究发现不可再生得到广泛关注后，《科学》也随即效仿了其他杂志的做法。
"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal," writes McNutt in an editorial.
“一定要让读者对我们出版的研究结论有信心，”麦克娜特在一篇专栏中写道。
Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors(SBoRE).
该杂志与美国统计协会一道，任命七名专家成立了一个数据校对编辑委员会。
Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers.
原稿将由杂志内部编辑，或已经成立的数据校对编辑委员会委员或外部同行校对员标注以供进一步的审查。
The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.
届时该委员会成员将物色外部统计专家来审查这些原稿。
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said:
在被问及是否已有特殊的论文促成了这样的改变时，麦克娜特说:
"The creation of the 'statistics board' was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish."
“对科学研究领域的统计学应用和数据分析的广泛关注，促使了‘数据校对编辑委员会的成立’，该委员会成立也是全面提高我们出版的研究可再生性努力的一部分。”
Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group.
乔瓦尼·帕尔米贾尼是哈佛大学公共卫生学院的生物统计学家、该委员会的成员。
He says he expects the board to "play primarily an advisory role."
他说他期望该委员会“能扮演最基本的顾问角色”。
He agreed to join because he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact.
他同意加入是因为“他发现建立该委员会的眼光很新颖、独特，还可能会有持久的影响力。”
This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science."
它影响到的不仅是《科学》杂志本身，而且可能影响到更多想要在《科学》杂志之后成为行业模范的出版社。
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward" and "long overdue."
约翰·伊奥尼迪斯，一名专攻研究方法论的物理学家，称这一政策是“最受欢迎的进步”却又“姗姗来迟。”
"Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish.
“数据审查是大多数杂志的薄弱环节，而这会损害出版物的质量。
I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review," he says.
我认为，对于当今大多数的科学论文来说，数据审查比专家审查更为重要，”他说道。
But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.
他曾指出，生物医学杂志如《内科医学年鉴》《美国医学会杂志》和《柳叶刀》都非常注重数据审查。
Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist.
细胞生物学家大卫·沃克斯称：“人们认为职业科学家应该懂得如何进行数据分析，但是已出版的研究中的数据错误却极其普遍。”
Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, "engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process".
他2012年在《自然》杂志中写到，研究者应提高他们的专业水准，而杂志更要不甘示弱，“聘用通晓统计的校对员和能核实数据的编辑”。
Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit,
沃克斯表示，《科学》杂志将论文交给统计学家审查的想法有其可取之处，
but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify 'the papers that need scrutiny' in the first place".
但它的不足是依赖委员会的审查编辑先识别出‘需要审查的论文’。
