Several recent, very public cases of scientific fraud have led the public to question the efficacy of manuscript review by biomedical journals. I do not think that the process is fundamentally flawed. I do think, however, that it can be improved.
For centuries, the editors of scientific journals have relied on expert academic peer reviewers to determine whether the conclusions drawn by the authors of a manuscript are supported by the data presented. Now, editors can take manuscript review one step further, by determining whether the digital image data presented are accurate representations of the original data. I believe they should use this ability to help ensure the accuracy of the data they publish.
As a result of the revolution in electronic communication, many journals now have completely electronic workflows, whereby authors submit all text and figures as electronic files. This provides for efficient transfer of information and improved reproduction ...
