Vol. 76 (4) 2024

ARTICLES

Who Would Care about the Science? Critique of the Paper by Gündemir et al. (2023), with Comments on Peer Review Responsibility

Bartosz Borczyk*

More info

*Department of Evolutionary Biology and Conservation of Vertebrates, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Wrocław, Sienkiewicza 21, 50-335 Wrocław, Poland; bartosz.borczyk@uwr.edu.pl; ORCID: 0000-0001-9630-1809

https://doi.org/10.71424/azb76.4.002767

PDF

Abstract
This article presents critique of the most important errors and flaws of the recently published article by Gündemir et al. entitled “Shape differences of the Carina sterni in birds of various locomotion types”. Numerous problems arise, including study design, statistical approach, interpretation of the results and others. It also raises the question on the responsibility of editors, reviewers and erosion of ethos of science.

Key words
Carina sterni; morphology; critique; scientific methodology

How to Cite
Borczyk B. 2024. Who Would Care about the Science? Critique of the Paper by Gündemir et al. (2023), with Comments on Peer Review Responsibility. Acta zoologica bulgarica 76 (4) 587-590.

References

  1. Al-Khatib A. & Teixeira da Silva J.A. 2019a. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research. Biochemia Medica 29: 020201.
  2. Al-Khatib A. & Teixeira da Silva J.A. 2019b. Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics 25: 293–321.
  3. Benton M. J. & Donoughe P. C. J. 2007. Paleontological evidence to date the tree of life. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24: 26–53.
  4. Bosques-Padilla F. J. & Gómez-Almaguer D. 2016. A new form of fraud in scientific publishing: supplanting or hacking the scientific review process. Medicina Universitaria 18: 1–2.
  5. Dryden I. L. & Mardia K. V. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis (Vol. 4). Wiley, Chichester.
  6. Dushoff J., Kain M. P. & Bolker B. M. 2019. I can see clearly now: reinterpreting statistical significance. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10: 756–759.
  7. Dytham C. 2011. Choosing and Using Statistics. A Biologist’s Guide. 3rd edition. Wiley, Blackwell.
  8. Feneck E. M., Bickley S. R. B. & Logan M. P. O. 2021. Embryonic development of the avian sternum and its morphological adaptations for optimizing locomotion. Diversity 13: 481.
  9. Ferguson C. Marcus A. & Oransky I. 2014. The peer-review scam. Nature 515: 480–482.
  10. Gündemir M. G., Szara T., Spataru C., Demircioglu I., Turek B., Petrovas G. & Spataru M. C. 2023. Shape differences of the Carina sterni in birds of various locomotion types. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 52: 190–196.
  11. Harvey P. H. & Pagel M. D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, 239 p.
  12. Haswell W. A. 1884. Studies on elasmobranch skeleton (Plates 1 and 2). Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 9: 71–119.
  13. Howes G. 1891. The morphology of the sternum. Nature 43: 269.
  14. Inoue J. G., Miya M., Lam K., Tay B.-H., Danks J. A., Bell J., Walker T. I. & Venkatesh B. 2010. Evolutionary origin and phylogeny of the modern holocephalans (Chondrichthyes: Chimaeriformes): a mitogenomic perspective. Molecular Biology and Evolution 27: 2576–2586.
  15. Kumar S., Stecher G., Suleski M. & Hedges S. B. 2017. TimeTree: a resource for timelines, timetrees, and divergence times. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34: 1812–1819.
  16. Lowi-Merri T. M., Benson R. B. J., Claramunt S. & Evans D. C. 2021. The relationship between sternum variation and mode of locomotion in birds. BMC Biology 19: 165.
  17. Parker T. J. 1890. Notes from the Otago University Museum. Nature 43: 141–142.
  18. Pierce S., Ahlberg P., Hutchinson J., Molnar J. L., Sanchez S., Tafforeau P. & Clack J. A. 2013. Vertebral architecture in the earliest stem tetrapods. Nature 494: 226–229.
  19. Rohlf F. J. & Slice D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematics Biology 39: 40–59.
  20. Sarewitz D. 2016. The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature 533: 147.
  21. Schmidt-Nielsen K. 1984. Scaling: Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  22. Teixeira da Silva J.A. 2020. Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? International Orthopaedics44: 2193–2194.
  23. Teixeira da Silva J. A. & Bornemann-Cimenti H. 2017. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics 110: 365–370.
  24. Walker R. & da Silva P.R. 2015. Emerging trends in peer review–survey. Frontiers in Neurosciences 9: 169, 2015.
  25. Zelditch M. L., Swiderski D. L., Sheets H. D. & Fink W. L. 2004. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists. A Primer. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier Academic Press.