Articles by Ronald Kostoff

A recent feature article in Nature examined the scientific impact of nations using the metrics of total publications and citations.1 For decision-making purposes, the article appears to be misleading, because critical and noncritical technologies, with high-tech and low-tech components, are country-aggregated in these numbers. Most important for potential users are critical technologies that impact strongly defense and civilian commerce.For example, in the 1997–2001 time frame, China is li

Cancer Prevention A recent letter in The Scientist recommended greater emphasis on cancer prevention, and outlined personal and societal regimens to enhance prevention.1 While these recommendations are laudable, they have been known for years, but have essentially not been implemented. In the United States, and increasingly in many other countries, an illness sub-economy has developed. It goes by the misnomer of 'health care.' A substantial and increasing share of gross domestic product is

The recent targeting of individuals and groups with the anthrax bacterium (Bacillus anthracis) has heightened the concern of the global community to bioterrorism. Unfortunately, the particular anthrax threat, and the responses discussed publicly, represent the tip of the iceberg. The anthrax bacterium cannot be transmitted through casual contact and is susceptible to antibiotics. In general, methods for anthrax prevention, detection, and treatment exist. Of far greater concern are readily transm

A recent article 1 emphasized the increasing obesity within the American population, and the author criticized the Food and Drug Administration for not allowing wider use of olestra to reduce fat/caloric intake. This article crystallizes what is wrong with much health-related research today. It is a classic example of looking for a 'magic bullet' approach to a serious problem rather than making the comprehensive lifestyle changes required. I have been conducting a text-mining study on the disc

Thomas J. Phelan states in his Oct. 2 Opinion1 that peer review has no alternatives for single research product quality evaluation, but publication and citation alternatives may exist for evaluating aggregated research quality. I have examined and developed myriad research evaluation methodologies for some time,2, 3 both for single and aggregate research units. For research evaluations that will impact real-world decisions, peer review is required at all levels of aggregation.2 Publications, pa

In a recent proposal to compensate journal peer reviewers,1 I emphasized the role of peer review as a strong quality filter. In response, Alexander Berezin states that without peer review, "scientists will likely publish less."2 Unfortunately, his envisioned scenario would, in fact, open the floodgates to lower-quality publications. Though the belief exists that there is too much data being placed in the literature due to publication pressure, there is actually a very modest amount of S&a

Eugene Russo addresses the increasing problem of researchers bypassing the peer review process for publication in the popular media.1 There are many reasons for this, and they stem from the incompatibility of present-day peer review practices with the information age. This letter addresses peer review pros and cons (mainly for R&D) and presents an approach to overcome some of the more egregious roadblocks. There are many reasons for performing peer review. Probably the main peer review

For researchers to compete strongly for federal funds, the benefits from their work need to receive full accounting and be articulated clearly. The impending implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) [Public Law 103-62] has begun to place even more emphasis on this research accounting requirement. Unfortunately, the present informal "system" for tracking and disseminating research products and downstream impacts has many deficiencies, resulting in a gross under

The Dec. 9, 1996, issue of The Scientist discusses researcher disagreement with the National Institutes of Health plan to improve its peer-review processes [T.W. Durso, page 1]. My reading of the peer-review literature, supplemented by the conduct of hundreds of peer reviews, leads me to the following documented conclusions on the subject (R.N. Kostoff, "The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment," 6th ed., Summer 1996, Defense Technical Information Center Report No. ADA296021; R.N. Kostoff, "F