retractions, peer review, and transparency

Retractions, Peer Review, and Transparency

ICISUniversity of California, Davis

February 13, 2014

Ivan OranskyCo-Founder, Retraction Watch

http://retractionwatch.com@ivanoransky

Is This Science Today?

Retractions on the Rise

http://pmretract.heroku.com/byyear

Most Retractions Due to Misconduct

PNAS online October 1, 2012

How Long Do Retractions Take?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2010/12/23/jme.2010.040923

Puzzling Policies

“It does however have several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers.”

The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

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.

The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

Scientists Value Transparency

More Retractions: A Good Thing?

One Way To Avoid Retractions

Contact Info

ivan-oransky@erols.com

http://retractionwatch.com

@ivanoransky

Thanks to Nancy Lapid, Reuters Health