PubPeer Selections: correction for Cell paper on stem cells; why omit controls; peer review report surfaces

Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:

“We have contacted the journal editors and agreed an erratum which will be published shortly,” writes Austin Smith, last author of a Cell paper on stem cells.
“These controls were not included in the manuscript as we felt that it would be too confusing for the readers…” writes the last author of a 2011 Genome Research paper.
“Below was my review of a previous version of this paper.” PubPeer: The place for peer reviewers to post their reports?
“The good thing about PubPeer is that we can all discuss the findings (with respect) trying to learn from each other,” says the author of a paper chosen for the Cancer Biology Reproducibility Project that was highlighted in a previous PubPeer Selections.
“I have to agree that the evidence of problems is fairly slight in this case,” writes a commenter about criticisms of a 2015 paper in Oncotarget.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

3 thoughts on “PubPeer Selections: correction for Cell paper on stem cells; why omit controls; peer review report surfaces”