Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

on

  • 27,088 views

Talk at the Karolinska Institutet, November 20, 2013

Talk at the Karolinska Institutet, November 20, 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
27,088
Views on SlideShare
2,266
Embed Views
24,822

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
9
Comments
0

8 Embeds 24,822

http://retractionwatch.com 24787
http://envisioningscience.wordpress.com 26
http://www.newsblur.com 3
https://twitter.com 2
https://www.google.com 1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com 1
https://www.google.com&_=1397634416756 HTTP 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism Presentation Transcript

  • Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism Karolinska Institutet November 20, 2013 Ivan Oransky Co-founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com @ivanoransky
  • Is This Science Today?
  • This is Transparency?
  • This is Transparency? Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…
  • Retractions on the Rise
  • How Often Are Studies Retracted?
  • Which Journals Retract? -Infection and Immunity 2011
  • How Often Are Studies Wrong? Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
  • Is Fraud on the Rise? A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. -- Fanelli, PLoS ONE, 2009
  • Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  • Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  • Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  • The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review
  • Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers
  • Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers -Science July 22, 2011
  • We Are All Gatekeepers: hESCs in Cell -Cell 2013; 153: 1228-1238
  • hESCs in Cell
  • hESCs in Cell “It does however have several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers.”
  • hESCs in Cell
  • hESCs in Cell
  • hESCs in Cell A number of comments about these errors in articles and blogs have drawn connections to the speed of the peer review process for this paper. Given the broad interest, importance, anticipated scrutiny of the claims of the paper and the preeminence of the reviewers, we have no reason to doubt the thoroughness or rigor of the review process.
  • hESCs in Cell The comparatively rapid turnaround for this paper can be attributed to the fact that the reviewers graciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewing this paper in a timely way. It is a misrepresentation to equate slow peer review with thoroughness or rigor or to use timely peer review as a justification for sloppiness in manuscript preparation.
  • Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up http://www.labtimes.org
  • Blogs Get Aggressive http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
  • Blogs Get Aggressive
  • Blogs Get Aggressive http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
  • Blogs Get Aggressive http://www.science-fraud.org/
  • Journals Are Listening
  • Journals Are Listening
  • So Are Scientists
  • So Are Funders http://blogs.nature.com/
  • Contact Info ivan-oransky@erols.com http://retractionwatch.com @ivanoransky Thanks to Nancy Lapid