ARE FLAWS IN PEER REVIEW SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEM?

ARE FLAWS IN PEER REVIEW SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEM?

Philip Moriarty asks a difficult question and uses the stripy controversy as an example of a more general problem. 

Pep Pamies, editor at Nature Materials, reappears in the comments; this time as ‘Curious Scientist’.

 

Advertisements

One comment

  1. This is one of the most recent examples of the flaws in peer reviewing system:
    So, there is a group of scientists from Switzerland publishing a paper in RSC’s Organometallics, entitled ‘Synthesis, Structure, and Catalytic Studies of Palladium and Platinum Bis-Sulfoxide Complexes’. Rather boring title for us interested in bio-nano stuff, but, if you take a closer look on page 12 of the Supporting Information file, you may be surprised/shocked/disguised (or…choose your feeling) as there is a clear instruction from one of the (presumably) corresponding authors writing: “Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis…”

    Does this deserves immediate retraction? Revision of the choice of peer reviews? Their further ban to review other papers? Who’s responsibility is to allow this to pass?
    Shame on: i) the journal for publishing this, ii) editor not seeing it; iii) authors even suggesting such things; iv) reviewers who are not doing their job correctly …

    Something like this is a direct offence to the hard work serious devoted scientists are doing every day.

    If you want to check for yourself, here is the link: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om4000067

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s