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

| 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

Keywords

Meet the Author

  • Alison McCook

    This person does not yet have a bio.
Share
May digest 2025 cover
May 2025, Issue 1

Study Confirms Safety of Genetically Modified T Cells

A long-term study of nearly 800 patients demonstrated a strong safety profile for T cells engineered with viral vectors.

View this Issue
Detecting Residual Cell Line-Derived DNA with Droplet Digital PCR

Detecting Residual Cell Line-Derived DNA with Droplet Digital PCR

Bio-Rad
How technology makes PCR instruments easier to use.

Making Real-Time PCR More Straightforward

Thermo Fisher Logo
Characterizing Immune Memory to COVID-19 Vaccination

Characterizing Immune Memory to COVID-19 Vaccination

10X Genomics
Optimize PCR assays with true linear temperature gradients

Applied Biosystems™ VeriFlex™ System: True Temperature Control for PCR Protocols

Thermo Fisher Logo

Products

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Biotium Launches New Phalloidin Conjugates with Extended F-actin Staining Stability for Greater Imaging Flexibility

Leica Microsystems Logo

Latest AI software simplifies image analysis and speeds up insights for scientists

BioSkryb Genomics Logo

BioSkryb Genomics and Tecan introduce a single-cell multiomics workflow for sequencing-ready libraries in under ten hours

iStock

Agilent BioTek Cytation C10 Confocal Imaging Reader

agilent technologies logo