Outsiders and the world of scientific publication

All areas of life are influenced by establishment views – where those in authority, or have expertise, influence the acceptance of new views or opinions. In an earlier post, I described why the conclusions drawn by John Vaughan Thompson were not readily accepted, and suggested that there were three factors why this was so [1]:

(i) His background as an independent, amateur researcher made him an “outsider”;

(ii) His work was published privately and was not widely available; and

(iii) His discoveries challenged the scientific establishment of the time.

Does this apply today?

In the nineteenth century, when Thompson was active, there was much still to be discovered about the life history and behaviour of organisms, and we now know so much more. Yet there continue to be many observers and amateur researchers who have a fund of knowledge that is not published in scientific journals and does not become part of the mainstream.

During the early 1970s, I was a PhD student working at the Moor House Field Station, high in the Pennines. It was a remote place that was once a hunting lodge, at least 5 miles from the nearest village [2], and needed a permanent caretaker to maintain the buildings, machinery, and land. At the time, it was someone called Jim and he had a passion for the natural world and, especially, for the biology of dippers (Cinclus cinclus) [3], that were relatively common in moorland streams like Moss Burn (see above) and other tributaries of the River Tees. As a result, Jim had a great insight into the breeding, distribution, and behaviour of these fascinating birds and it was always a pleasure to get him talking about them. I encouraged him to write about his observations, but he wouldn’t do so, and thus his knowledge was only known to those who engaged him in conversation.

How would someone like Jim share their knowledge in the 2020s? By conversation, certainly, but we now have the internet and all manner of sites on which observations can be posted. Of course, there are problems of accessing the information, and searches using keywords can come up with huge numbers of entries that must then be sifted through. Some sites allow labels that aid search engines but we all experience the difficulty of access, even though much information is readily accessible! This is the world of “grey literature” and would someone interested in publishing in an academic journal use Jim’s observations? Almost certainly not.

Some mainstream journals accept observations, but the majority require papers based on research and/or scholarship, to be submitted according to their house style and rules for submission. Many journals feature in abstracts and search engines like “Web of Knowledge”, but there are several hurdles to overcome before a paper is accepted. The most prestigious ones will not send all submitted papers out to referees, and rejection can also come after receipt of referees’ comments. In my (limited) experience it is uncommon for a paper to be accepted as submitted, and “minor revisions” or “major revisions” are usually required. To an author this can be a frustrating process, as referees may have agendas: most, however, take their role as referees seriously and want to help the author and the editor. Once accepted, there is then the wait for publication, but all this is for the academic community, not for someone with important observations that can add to the grey literature, much of which is not peer reviewed. If John Vaughan Thompson had attempted to publish in one of the leading journals, he would likely have seen his papers rejected, given the response he received. Such is the power of the establishment in any discipline.

[1] https://rwotton.blogspot.com/2021/10/being-outsider-story-of-john-vaughan.html

[2] https://rwotton.blogspot.com/2018/04/tempus-fugit.html 

[3] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/dipper/

 

  

Tempus fugit

More than 45 years ago, I spent two summers at the Moor House Field Station. It was a remote place, only accessible by a track from Garrigill near Alston in Cumbria: an idea of how remote is provided by the videoclip below [1]. Originally, the building was a hunting lodge, but a succession of outbuildings was then added and a laboratory (the large square structure shown clearly at 3.04 in the video) constructed for those working on the  IBP (International Biological Programme) in the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to research on the biology of vegetation and grouse, the laboratory was an outstation of the FBA (Freshwater Biological Association), with scientists investigating the effects of building Cow Green Reservoir on local rivers. Most of the “permanent” members of the Field Station came in by Land Rover each day, but there were also residents, including a cook/housekeeper in the summer months to cater for visitors, staying for days to months, from Universities and other establishments.

I first visited Moor House as a research student of the University of Durham from 1970-1973 but returned during the time of my first academic post at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In the summer of 1972, I lived at Moor House during the week and walked to the local streams that I was studying, as well as driving to sites in Upper Teesdale in a Land Rover. My interest was in the distribution and biology of blackfly larvae in moorland streams (it was usual at that time to have an interest in one group of animals or plants) and compare the effects of altitude on distribution and production. All the collections needed to be processed and this work was carried out in the laboratory at Moor House (see the photograph below, taken by Patrick Armitage of the FBA).

All the hours of work resulted in a PhD thesis and some research papers, although my contribution to science was at that time minimal. By the time of my second summer, in 1974, my interests were broadening into studies of feeding in freshwater invertebrates and, serendipitously, these led to a paper in Nature [2], regarded as something of a “holy grail” for scientists starting out on their careers. It was from this work that I became a little more widely known and I then began a collaboration with the Rheo-Group in Lund in Sweden that provided both a jumping off point for my studies on particulate and dissolved organic matter in water bodies and for many research visits to Sweden and Finland. I never went back to Moor House.

So, what became of the Moor House Field Station? Sadly, it was regarded as being of limited use to the research community after the 1980s, except for those who continued to make day visits, and “permanent” staff left for other posts. The buildings began to decay and were then demolished, the rubble being used to reinforce the track – providing an odd memorial to the achievements of many who stayed, or worked, at Moor House (see below for how the site looks now [3]). My study streams remain – they were there long before the House, of course – and there will otherwise be no record of my research other than a few pieces of paper in journals. Of course, my memories are strong and there are many happy times to recall. These included playing Layla (Derek and the Dominoes) and All the Young Dudes (Mott the Hoople) at full volume on some evenings and, more reflectively, listening to Bruch’s Scottish Fantasia so often that it almost became a theme for the place. Then there was the excellent food cooked by Mrs Dunn in the large AGA in the kitchen and the pleasure to taking a bath at the end of a long day – once one became used to the peat-stained water.

Like I say, just memories and little else, yet it all seemed so important at the time.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV-IS3J7LiQ

[2] R.S.Wotton (1976) Evidence that blackfly larvae can collect particles of colloidal size. Nature 261:697.

[3] John Adamson (2009) Moor House Memories. (access through http://www.ecn.ac.uk/publications/moor-house-memories).