Scientific Fraud Can Corrupt Peer Reviewed Research Results

Kelsey Piper suggests that some types of fraud by scientists should be criminalized . She cites the example of Don Poldermans, a researcher who promoted treatment guidelines employing harmful heart medication may have killed 800,000 patients in Europe alone (see Kendricks, 2014. Malcolm Kendricks uses this case to highlight that a peer reviewed research result suggests, but does not prove, the validity of a therapy.

-DD

Peer Review

Adeline Koh is writing a series for the Chronicle on "Digital Challenges to Academic Publishing. In her April 17, 2013 post about her interview with Ken Wissoker, Editorial Director for Duke University Press, she quotes Wissoker's explanation of the peer review process at Duke:

At Duke, a manuscript generally need two or three rounds of peer review before the readers agree that it is ready to be published. That process guides the author. In the end there is a big difference between the version the author initially turns in, "okay here's my manuscript," and the manuscript that results from the review process. The amount of change varies, but, as above, even small changes can make big differences in readability and the clarity and convincingness of the argument.

NOTE: This fits with my own observation that a peer review document usually appears six months to a year after the author's initial submission, something students do not consider when researching current events.

-DD