From: Michael Clarke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:47:42 -0400

While it might be an interesting exercise to compare the nature of the
claims in the Bohannon bogus paper with any number of retracted
article, my point is that such a comparison is irrelevant in 81 of
instances in which the Bohannon paper was accepted. It is irrelevant
because 81 of the publishers appear not to have even reviewed the
paper.

Michael Clarke

On Oct 24, 2013, at 1:11 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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