Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism
Post-Publication Peer Review in Science:
Reflections on Retractions
and Medical Journalism
November 20, 2013
Co-founder, Retraction Watch
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
-- Fanelli, PLoS ONE, 2009
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
Blogs Get Aggressive