Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever

booksThis week, we marked the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch with the announcement of a generous new grant. We also covered the retraction of a slew of papers in a journal plagued by problems. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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.

6 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever”

  1. You are mentioned in the University of Illinois Chancellor Phyllis Wise email dump (https://www.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=278006) this past week as a “minor blog” (so says Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs Robin Kaler) in reference to your post on Wise (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/09/u-illinois-chancellor-earns-mega-correction-for-duplicate-publication/) and her “mega-correction.” You must have hit a nerve! Keep it up, please.

  2. The recollection of thoughts about the current peer review system offered by the THE is entertaining. As stated by Jim Woodgett:
    “Ask a scientist whether they have ever received a terrible review of their submitted work, then stand back and prepare for a deluge of anecdotes.”

    My contribution to the deluge:

    We submitted in 2010 a manuscript including non-revolutionary results to a rather low-IF journal (J. Chem. Crystallogr., Springer). Nothing happened for a while. About 7 months after submission, I received a positive, but strangely short review. Reviewer 1: five lines. Reviewer 2: one line. Within a month of receiving these reviews, one third of the results included in our manuscript (actually the most relevant X-ray structure) were published in another journal (J. Mol. Struct., Elsevier) by another team.

    1. I had a reviewer tells us that our research was irrelevant, because the FDA had not approved any water-in-oil protein-containing emulsions for parenteral use. Fortunately the Editor also thought the reviewer had perhaps been a bit harsh. Unfortunately, he decided to add two additional reviewers to the three original reviewers. I don’t think I ever was involved in a paper with such a long rebuttal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.