Comment Re:Sarbanes Oxley? (Score 1) 117
Actually, peer review is NOT very good at picking up premeditated, deliberate fraud by the submitting scientist. A good peer reviewer may notice inconsistencies that may require further investigation, but if the author really wants to fool the journal, they can. Even in this case, when a reviewer requested additional data, more fraudulent data was provided.
Unfortunately, what may be the long-term result is an unofficial embargo against Korean papers by the more prestigous journals. Journals receive papers with fantastic claims and conclusions all of the time, but unless the author is a well-known scientist, or from a well known lab or institution, these manuscripts get pitched.
Even today, journal editors are skeptical of papers from Russia or mainland China, not to mention countries with lesser scientific reputations. Decades ago, Japanese labs were in a similar position until they whipped themselves into shape.
Journals may now be thinking: if the highest-profile, best-funded lab in South Korea can't be trusted, and other Korean scientists couldn't be objective enough to detect such blatant fraud, why should we trust anything from that country?
Unfortunately, what may be the long-term result is an unofficial embargo against Korean papers by the more prestigous journals. Journals receive papers with fantastic claims and conclusions all of the time, but unless the author is a well-known scientist, or from a well known lab or institution, these manuscripts get pitched.
Even today, journal editors are skeptical of papers from Russia or mainland China, not to mention countries with lesser scientific reputations. Decades ago, Japanese labs were in a similar position until they whipped themselves into shape.
Journals may now be thinking: if the highest-profile, best-funded lab in South Korea can't be trusted, and other Korean scientists couldn't be objective enough to detect such blatant fraud, why should we trust anything from that country?
