We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

[SEOUL] The third day (10 June) of the 9th World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul opened with something unusual. The picture of a scary white ghost was displayed on the big screen in the auditorium.

Connie St Louis, senior lecturer in science journalism at City University London, brought the ghost to relate it to the discussion on science journalism. She was inspired by the story of Hamlet who follows the ghost of his father to find out the truth about the state of Denmark.

St Louis thinks that there are also “ghosts” in science which are not clearly seen in the eyes of many people, including science journalists themselves. She says, following these ghosts will lead us to the truth about the “state of science”. Of these ghosts, one that personally interests me most is the “peer-reviewed wall”.

St Louis mentions the case of scientific misconduct involving scientists at the Japan-based research institute RIKEN, which became a big issue last year. At the time of its coverage, St Louis asked the journal Nature to tell her about its own peer-reviewed process. She didn’t get any answers.

“I think science is a lonely investigation,” she muses. “That is really problematic because we don’t know what’s going on in this peer review process. It needs more transparency.”

St Louis encourages science journalists to be unapologetic when reporting science stories. They have to be cynical when reading science journals and look at many possible angles to check if there is misconduct. This will lead them to the facts — the ultimate goal of a science journalist.

St Louis’s talk on the ghosts of peer review reminds me of a controversial research published in Nature Geoscience in 2013, which claimed that Indonesia’s mud lakes in Sidoarjo were not caused by the drilling of Lapindo Brantas, a company owned by an Indonesian tycoon and prominent politician.

The author declared no financial interest. But I think, there is still a ghost that needs to be followed in that story.

This article has been produced by SciDev.Net's South-East Asia & Pacific desk.