From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:09:35 -0700

Michael Clarke might have misfired here. Certainly, after comparing
two situations, we may see the difference.

Bohannon claims to introduce a clear-unambiguous-mistaken statement.
(True, I would like to know more of this statement - anyone is ready
to comment? Eisen's blog says: "His hoax paper claimed that a
particular molecule slowed the growth of cancer cells, and it was
riddled with obvious errors and contradictions." What are they?)

The retracted papers obviously cannot possibly have such an "obvious
blunder". Usually, the authors only belatedly understand that they
violated protocol or could not repeat an experiment with the second
set of data.

(Again I would like to hear more about the given reason for retraction
from Stem Cells. I would also like to hear what Science's reviewers
actually said about Eisen's paper).

Ari Belenkiy

SFU
Canada


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Michael Clarke <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:41:06 -0400
>
> To categorize Bohannon's journalistic sting operation as a
> demonstration of the failure of peer review in the same vein as a
> journal, such as Stem Cells and Development or Science (see Michael
> Eisen's blog: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439) that has the
> occasional retraction, is a false equivalence. It is a false
> equivalence because the retracted papers were, in the case of Stem
> Cells and Development and Science, peer reviewed.
>
> I suggest that anyone interested in this story follow the link that
> Phil provided below and look at the data set. According to Bohannon,
> 81 of the journals that accepted the paper did not even review it.
> Assuming this is representative of submission to these journals and
> not a one-time fluke, this is not what I call a failure of peer
> review. This is what I call a fraudulent business. A journal which
> accepts money in the form of APCs under the pretense that it is a peer
> reviewed publication, when in fact it is no such thing, is a fraud.
>
> Yes, it would be nice if there were a control group but I'm unclear
> why the lack of one excuses what appear to be fraudulent business
> practices on the part of at least 81 of these publishers.
>
> Michael Clarke
> President
> Clarke & Company
> [log in to unmask]