Reviewers (And Editors) Behaving Badly

CSEPhiladelphia, 2015

Ivan Oransky, MDRetraction WatchMedPage Today

New York University@ivanoransky

Is This Science Today?

2

Robots No Longer Considered Harmful

I.P. Freely, Oliver Clothesoff, Jacques Strap, Hugh Jazz, Amanda Huginkiss

Is This Science Today?

3

Is This Science Today?

Editors As Authors

Top 10 authors RASD/RIDD 2010-2014: from Scopus (chart by Dorothy Bishop)

Editors As Reviewers

Lag from paper received to acceptance (days) for 73 papers co-authored by journal editors, 2010-2014 (chart by Dorothy Bishop)

Go Double-Blind?

The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

-Cell 2013; 153: 1228-1238

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

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.