Science has been corrupted

Two years after its first submission and my paper was finally published last week. Though I am obviously happy to have another publication out, this whole process only reassured my dislike of the peer-review process with all of its politics and flaws. The peer-review process looks great in theory, but at the end of the day many of the peers have an agenda that is often not based on scientific grounds and it is heavily influenced by whether you are a competitor or collaborator. For example, though reviewers consistently said that the science in my manuscript was solid, it was rejected because it lacked a mechanism to frame the observations and a sexy model to sell it.

In my application to graduate school, I wrote that "the scientist's mission is to search for the truth, wherever it may lead and regardless of the conclusions one may reach". I was very naïve then and I have grown very cynical. Science is not about the truth. The currency in academic research is publications. "Publish or perish!" is what they say. Publications are used to support grant applications which will provide the funds to run the lab. Obviously, one should strive to publish in high profile journals because such publications will increase the odds of getting funded. To achieve that, authors write the best possible "story" about the data. Note the clear distinction between an objective presentation of data and its analysis versus and opinion piece where the story (not the data) is manipulated, and pitched using a sexy model that is not supported by all data – but these data are discarded to avoid contradictions. Science has been corrupted; publications and funding have become more important than the truth.

Here is the link to my article:

http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007436