This time, the Times may be a little off

When I saw this month?s linkurl:cover story;http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/ earned a mention in Monday?s New York Times article called "Reporters find science journals harder to trust, but not easy to verify," my eyes lingered over both the headline of the story and the writer?s take on our article? namely, that the rocketing rate of submissions to top-tier journals was "weakening the screening process." On the one hand, I see her point. While journals appear to

Alison McCook
Feb 13, 2006
When I saw this month?s linkurl:cover story;http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/ earned a mention in Monday?s New York Times article called "Reporters find science journals harder to trust, but not easy to verify," my eyes lingered over both the headline of the story and the writer?s take on our article? namely, that the rocketing rate of submissions to top-tier journals was "weakening the screening process." On the one hand, I see her point. While journals appear to be trying to hire editors to stay apace of submissions, it?s easy to see how the situation could easily spin out of control. But I have yet to see data showing that cases of fraud increase with the number of submissions. And it?s hard to believe that, with more time to review, editors would have spotted Woo-Suk Hwang?s monumental subterfuges. Sure, peer review has its flaws; sometimes papers are likely published that shouldn?t be, and vice versa....

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?