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

29,921 views

Published on

Talk at the Karolinska Institutet, November 20, 2013

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
29,921
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26,859
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Is This Science Today?
  3. 3. This is Transparency?
  4. 4. This is Transparency? Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…
  5. 5. Retractions on the Rise
  6. 6. How Often Are Studies Retracted?
  7. 7. Which Journals Retract? -Infection and Immunity 2011
  8. 8. How Often Are Studies Wrong? Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  11. 11. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  12. 12. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?
  13. 13. The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review
  14. 14. Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers
  15. 15. Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers -Science July 22, 2011
  16. 16. We Are All Gatekeepers: hESCs in Cell -Cell 2013; 153: 1228-1238
  17. 17. hESCs in Cell
  18. 18. hESCs in Cell “It does however have several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers.”
  19. 19. hESCs in Cell
  20. 20. hESCs in Cell
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 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.
  23. 23. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up http://www.labtimes.org
  24. 24. Blogs Get Aggressive http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/
  25. 25. Blogs Get Aggressive
  26. 26. Blogs Get Aggressive http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com
  27. 27. Blogs Get Aggressive http://www.science-fraud.org/
  28. 28. Journals Are Listening
  29. 29. Journals Are Listening
  30. 30. So Are Scientists
  31. 31. So Are Funders http://blogs.nature.com/
  32. 32. Contact Info ivan-oransky@erols.com http://retractionwatch.com @ivanoransky Thanks to Nancy Lapid

×