Talk at the Karolinska Institutet, November 20, 2013

1. 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

2. Is This Science Today?

4. This is Transparency?

5. This is Transparency?
Results: …Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the
reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%)…

6. Retractions on the Rise

7. How Often Are Studies Retracted?

8. Which Journals Retract?
-Infection and Immunity 2011

9. How Often Are Studies Wrong?
Ioannidis JPA. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8): e124

10. 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

11. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

12. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

13. Or Are We Just Better At Catching It?

14. The Rise of Post-Publication Peer Review

15. Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers

16. Reporters As Post-Publication Peer Reviewers
-Science July 22, 2011

17. We Are All Gatekeepers:
hESCs in Cell
-Cell 2013; 153: 1228-1238

18. hESCs in Cell

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

20. hESCs in Cell

21. hESCs in Cell

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Anonymous Whistleblowers Step Up
http://www.labtimes.org

25. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://abnormalscienceblog.wordpress.com/

26. Blogs Get Aggressive

27. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com

28. Blogs Get Aggressive
http://www.science-fraud.org/

29. Journals Are Listening

30. Journals Are Listening

31. So Are Scientists

32. So Are Funders
http://blogs.nature.com/

33. Contact Info
ivan-oransky@erols.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@ivanoransky
Thanks to Nancy Lapid