Very interesting discussion about a peer review at bioinformatics. One reviewer called Heng Li ‘scientifically dishonest’ and rejected one of his papers.
But how did it come that far?!?
- Was the paper not good enough?
- Was the described tool not good enough?
- Is a great publication record enough to publish every manuscript?
- It the peer review process itself the problem?
Many questions are raised at this blog... what is your opinion? Do you think that an open reviewing process would fix the problem? Would the voice of one reviewer heard, if hundreds of Heng Li fans rate all of his papers as 'expert prooved'? My opinion: In a public reviewing process, the paper would have been published just because of the name 'Heng Li'. Good, or bad???
That blog post is a nice example of sensationalist headline grabbing (I know you didn't write it, so that's not directed at you!). Heng Li wasn't actually "found" anything. He just got in a spat with a reviewer who started calling him names (i.e., "scientifically dishonest").
It would sound very different if the headline was: Mapping God Called 'Scientifically Dishonest’ by Anonymous Peer Reviewers
Or even just, "Author and reviewer have a row" :P
Disgruntled Reviewer Sinks Paper, News at 11
If it were actually a nightly news promo, it'd be more like, "What you don't know this reviewer could KILL you! News at 11". I guess that'd bump the sensationalism up a notch.