Retraction Watch

Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus write: Unlike newspapers, which strive for celerity as much as accuracy, science journals have the luxury of time. Thorough vetting, through editorial boards, peer reviewers and other filters, is the coin of the realm. And yet mistakes happen.

.

I stumbled upon Retraction Watch while reading a Nature news article, Peer Review Scam, a puff-piece of sorts by these science journalists and bloggers.

Ivan Oransky MD cross cites MedPage Today, an Everyday Health property, where he is Global Editorial Director.

Everyday Health says: Our brands fall into one of the following categories: (i) brands that we own and/or operate in partnership with leading offline providers of health content or prominent health and wellness experts and personalities; and (ii) brands where we manage and sell advertising opportunities on behalf of partners.

At heart, of course, are issues of trust and authority, and who has the right to question that of others.

further comments

Weishi Laura Meng: It is no news that the peer review system is broken, whether in grant proposal evaluation or in refereeing journal submittals. Plagued by cronysm, lobbying, old-boy's network, editor courtship and other venal practices, peer review is failing. What this article reports is the childish modus operandi of people duping amateurish journals. Rather than focusing on the big picture and taking the high ground, this article only fuels hysteria, which is what Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky do in their blog Retraction Watch.

Paul Vincelli: So glad to see that integrity of the publication process will prevail. The peer-review system certainly is imperfect, but it is sooooo much better than the free-for-all of self-publishing on the internet. We are not living in the Age of Information; rather, it is the Age of Misinformation.