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: 0.864.45) 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: 9.9119.72) 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