Summary: Scientists are supposed to be objective, so why is it easier to publish your paper when you’re in a big-name lab? Why do women and minorities get harsher feedback from reviewers than white men? And more importantly, what can be done to make the process fair?<br> When Peer Review Attacks<br> In this episode, we uncover the seamy underbelly of paper publishing and take a look at some alternatives to the current system of peer review, including the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931" target="_blank">recent move by Nature</a> to make the process “Double Blind”.<br> We’ll look at some of the early forms of scientific discourse and trace the evolution through time and technology, as well as identifying the unintended consequences of the current system. Is it better to make the process open like PLoS ONE? Would scientists benefit from an online collaboration tool that allowed discussion and feedback after publication?<br> Dan and Josh have different opinions about how to improve the process, so be sure to leave your feedback in the comments section or on our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/hellophdpodcast" target="_blank">Facebook page</a>. How would you change the peer review system to improve scientific rigor, inclusiveness, and expand science’s impact on society?<br> <br> Beer and Puzzles!<br> Moving from peer review to BEER review, we celebrate summer this week with the <a href="http://www.fullsteam.ag/beer/southern/" target="_blank">Fullsteam Summer Basil Farmhouse Ale</a> and Daniel introduces a new puzzle form of the weekly word origin. He’ll give you a phrase that contains a literal translation of the secret word, along with some hints to help you find it. Your job is to guess the right word based on its meaning!<br> This week’s clue is:<br> This book, published by the Royal Society, must have contained very small handwriting.<br> If you think you know the answer, email it to <a href="mailto:puzzle@hellophd.com">puzzle@hellophd.com</a> by Thursday, August 6, 2015. We’ll select a winner randomly from the correct answers and announce it on the next episode. Happy Wording!<br> <br> Resources<br> Here are some links to the papers and websites we mentioned in the show:<br> <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931">Nature Journals Offer Double-Blind Review</a><br><br> <a href="http://www.thespectroscope.com/read/natures-double-blind-review-the-opposite-of-what-we-need-by-lenny-teytelman-297" target="_blank">Lenny Teytelman’s rebuttal to Nature’s announcement</a><br><br> <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772" target="_blank">Hilda Bastion’s call for a stronger post-publication culture</a><br><br> <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information" target="_blank">PLOS One’s publication criteria</a><br><br> <a href="http://www.upenn.edu/provost/images/uploads/Gender.Racial_.Bias_.pdf" target="_blank">A great introduction to gender and racial bias at the university level</a><br><br> <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1015" target="_blank">Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards</a><br><br> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17963996" target="_blank">Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.</a><br><br> <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9676670" target="_blank">US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.</a><br><br> <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844&fileId=S0140525X00011183" target="_blank">Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again</a><br> <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wakingtiger/3157622458">Peer Review Monster by Gideon Burton</a><br>
