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

Written byAlison McCook
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
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. But I?ve worked on a lot of linkurl:articles;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23105/ lately about peer review and the linkurl:fallout;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23107/ from Hwang, and nothing?s changed the amount of trust I have in scientific journals. It?s easy to see how journalists who write for a general audience may have changed their views on publishing, given that all they hear about lately is misconduct. But I?m a science journalist -- I know science is self-correcting, and everyone who writes about it should know this, as well. And I know that fraud is what happens sometimes in research, and always has. There will always be another Hwang on the horizon.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
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? Login Here

Related Topics

Meet the Author

Share
Illustration of a developing fetus surrounded by a clear fluid with a subtle yellow tinge, representing amniotic fluid.
January 2026

What Is the Amniotic Fluid Composed of?

The liquid world of fetal development provides a rich source of nutrition and protection tailored to meet the needs of the growing fetus.

View this Issue
Human-Relevant In Vitro Models Enable Predictive Drug Discovery

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Stemcell Technologies
Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Beckman Coulter Logo
Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

Unchained Labs

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological's Launch of SwiftFluo® TR-FRET Kits Pioneers a New Era in High-Throughout Kinase Inhibitor Screening

SPT Labtech Logo

SPT Labtech enables automated Twist Bioscience NGS library preparation workflows on SPT's firefly platform

nuclera logo

Nuclera eProtein Discovery System installed at leading Universities in Taiwan

Brandtech Logo

BRANDTECH Scientific Introduces the Transferpette® pro Micropipette: A New Twist on Comfort and Control