“Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.”

my understanding is that Krebs’ citric acid cycle paper wasn’t really rejected by Nature – rather the editor told him he had enough letters to fill the Nature correspondence columns for 7 or 8 weeks, if Krebs didn’t mind the delay he’d keep it “until the congestion is relieved in the hope of making use of it” but was returning it to Krebs “in case Mr. Krebs prefers to submit it for early publication to another periodical”, which Krebs then did.

The original 1937 letter from the editor is available at Nature’s timeline of the journal’s history, 1953 entry, One that got away, along with a lovely (“tongue firmly in cheek” ) retort from Krebs 16 years later after he’d won the Nobel prize for the work.

Actual letters here .

Links in case html ones don’t work (can’t preview)
http://www.nature.com/nature/history/timeline_1950s.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/history/pdf/krebs_letter.pdf

The idea that we should “purge” scientific works from the body of our scientific knowledge, I find to be an idea which is offensive to the core values of science.

“foster and provide a lasting record of scientific discussion;”

I really don’t believe it serves the interest of science to completely, flat-out reject a scientific study, or to retract a study, even if it is at the request of the original author. I like the idea of keeping anonymity for the sake of removing social pressure on the reviewer, but the criticisms of the study need to remain open and transparent so that the public can evaluate the review. Should we change our scientific assumptions further down the road, it would also be valuable to be able to go back to historical studies that were not well received and be able to say “hey, wait a minute, that study was not accepted by the public for these concerns, which have now been debunked, so the study now holds more significance”.

Ultimately, it is the entire body of science that establishes our opinion of what studies most likely reflect reality; and this is the only truly reliable way to limit human bias. Consider this: the fundamental scientific principle of reproducibility is so cherished because we have acknowledge the danger of human bias; and that it can only be reliably removed through such a principle. Well… non-transparent, peer review undermines this tenant by refusing to allow certain studies to stand up to the fundamental, unbiased test of reproducibility. You are essentially trading a biased process for a fundamental scientific principle.

A colleague has drawn my attention to this discussion, and I would like to draw your attention to advanced forms of peer review that resolve most of the concerns and issues raised above.

Since 2001 the interactive open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP, http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net) and over a dozen of sister journals published by the European Geosciences Union (EGU, http://www.egu.eu) demonstrate how the efficiency of scientific communication and quality assurance can be enhanced by a two-stage process of publication with public peer review with interactive discussion.

These interactive open access journals are by most if not all standards and statistical indicators more successful than comparable traditional journals, and the same or similar concepts of public peer review and discussion have recently also been adopted in other scientific disciplines (economics, life sciences, etc.). For more information see the web pages and references listed below.

With best regards,
Uli Pöschl

http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/index.html

http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/general_information/public_relations.html

http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/pr_acp_poschl_liber_quarterly_2010_interactive_open_access_publishing.pdf