Why I retracted my Nature paper: correcting the scientific record

Re:Why I retracted my Nature paper: correcting the scientifi... by jessriedel on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @05:28PM (#5908412)

I believe in this case, where two outside reviewers recommended acceptance and the original authors recommended rejection, that the appropriate action for the editors was to get the two outsider reviewer's opinion on the original author's report. Even better, a third outside reviewer should be contacted to assess the original author's report.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I retracted my Nature paper: correcting the scientifi... by ISL on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @07:12PM (#5909093)

I'd even call for greater numbers of referees. There are big practical problems with doing so, but the uncertainty associated with the traditional two or three referees is >50% ( sqrt(3)/3 ). An ensemble of 7-8 referees may produce a more reliable result.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I retracted my Nature paper: correcting the scientifi... by jessriedel on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @08:41PM (#5909470)

Refereeing is already a huge time sink. I don't believe doubling the referee burden is a possibility without a major incentive changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I retracted my Nature paper: correcting the scientifi... by ISL on Wednesday June 19, 2013 @09:51PM (#5909696)

Agreed completely. Doing it right takes a lot of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]