評論
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.
總主編馬西婭·麥克娜特今天宣布：《科學》雜志在同行評閱之外又增加一輪數據審查。
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.
數據分析中出現的基本錯誤致使許多出版的研究發現不可再生得到廣泛關注后，《科學》也隨即效仿了其他雜志的做法。
"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal," writes McNutt in an editorial.
“一定要讓讀者對我們出版的研究結論有信心，”麥克娜特在一篇專欄中寫道。
Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors(SBoRE).
該雜志與美國統計協會一道，任命七名專家成立了一個數據校對編輯委員會。
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.
原稿將由雜志內部編輯，或已經成立的數據校對編輯委員會委員或外部同行校對員標注以供進一步的審查。
The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts.
屆時該委員會成員將物色外部統計專家來審查這些原稿。
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said:
在被問及是否已有特殊的論文促成了這樣的改變時，麥克娜特說:
"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."
“對科學研究領域的統計學應用和數據分析的廣泛關注，促使了‘數據校對編輯委員會的成立’，該委員會成立也是全面提高我們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.
喬瓦尼·帕爾米賈尼是哈佛大學公共衛生學院的生物統計學家、該委員會的成員。
He says he expects the board to "play primarily an advisory role."
他說他期望該委員會“能扮演最基本的顧問角色”。
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.
他同意加入是因為“他發現建立該委員會的眼光很新穎、獨特，還可能會有持久的影響力。”
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."
它影響到的不僅是《科學》雜志本身，而且可能影響到更多想要在《科學》雜志之后成為行業模范的出版社。
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is "a most welcome step forward" and "long overdue."
約翰·伊奧尼迪斯，一名專攻研究方法論的物理學家，稱這一政策是“最受歡迎的進步”卻又“姍姍來遲。”
"Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish.
“數據審查是大多數雜志的薄弱環節，而這會損害出版物的質量。
I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review," he says.
我認為，對于當今大多數的科學論文來說，數據審查比專家審查更為重要，”他說道。
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，生物醫學雜志如《內科醫學年鑒》《美國醫學會雜志》和《柳葉刀》都非常注重數據審查。
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.
細胞生物學家大衛·沃克斯稱：“人們認為職業科學家應該懂得如何進行數據分析，但是已出版的研究中的數據錯誤卻極其普遍。”
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》雜志中寫到，研究者應提高他們的專業水準，而雜志更要不甘示弱，“聘用通曉統計的校對員和能核實數據的編輯”。
Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians "has some merit,
沃克斯表示，《科學》雜志將論文交給統計學家審查的想法有其可取之處，
but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify 'the papers that need scrutiny' in the first place".
但它的不足是依賴委員會的審查編輯先識別出‘需要審查的論文’。
