post-publication peer review in science: reflections on retractions and medical journalism

33
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

Upload: ivan-oransky

Post on 10-Aug-2014

27.108 views

Category:

Art & Photos


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Talk at the Karolinska Institutet, November 20, 2013

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions

and Medical JournalismKarolinska InstitutetNovember 20, 2013

Ivan OranskyCo-founder, Retraction Watchhttp://retractionwatch.com

@ivanoransky

Page 2: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Is This Science Today?

Page 3: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism
Page 4: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

This is Transparency?

Page 5: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

This is Transparency?

Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…

Page 6: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Retractions on the Rise

Page 7: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

How Often Are Studies Retracted?

Page 8: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Which Journals Retract?

-Infection and Immunity 2011

Page 9: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

How Often Are Studies Wrong?

Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124

Page 10: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

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

Page 11: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

Page 12: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

Page 13: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

Page 14: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

Page 15: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers

Page 16: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers

-Science July 22, 2011

Page 17: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

We Are All Gatekeepers:hESCs in Cell

-Cell 2013; 153: 1228-1238

Page 18: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

hESCs in Cell

Page 19: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

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

hESCs in Cell

Page 20: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

hESCs in Cell

Page 21: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

hESCs in Cell

Page 22: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

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.

Page 23: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

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.

Page 24: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up

http://www.labtimes.org

Page 25: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

Page 26: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Blogs Get Aggressive

Page 27: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

Page 28: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Blogs Get Aggressive

http://www.science-fraud.org/

Page 29: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Journals Are Listening

Page 30: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Journals Are Listening

Page 31: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

So Are Scientists

Page 32: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

So Are Funders

http://blogs.nature.com/

Page 33: Post-Publication Peer Review in Science: Reflections on Retractions and Medical Journalism

Contact Info

[email protected]

http://retractionwatch.com

@ivanoransky

Thanks to Nancy Lapid