reply to post by BDBinc
I'm glad you see my typo and capitalize on it, does it makes you look better in your mind? but no it's her fault and just her. A lab is not an
assembly line were all past through supervisors and at the end there is a quality check, a lab got researchers ( usually PhD students) that work under
the guidance of a researcher each one having a different project with have some relation to the interest of the rest of the group. A senior member may
not have any connection to the research in question as the mayority of the group does not have relation, and still it's name could appear in the paper
if just make a spellcheck or a minor contribution to the paper, usually people try to associate papers to the senior researchers even if they are not
related just to give more weight to the publication and make it easier to pass peer review, a reviewer will reject more easily a paper of an unknow
than a paper or someone with 1k papers.
The publisher is not liable for the information published, they does not make the research after all and when you are goin to summit a paper a
disclaimer appears were you have to swear that the information is good, it's original research ( not a copy) and that you havent publish this in any
Once its summited to the publisher a peer review process begins if it's not rejected right away. The peer process varies from publication to
publication but usually consist of 3 reviewers "expert" in the field of the article. They have to determinate only if the information is original, if
it's adequate presented and if it's relevant to the field of research. They may see if you reach to a conclusion you cannot reach with the data you
have and even perhaps suggest some test to perform to include to the article in order to reach that conclusion but they never corroborate if the
information is true, after all the author swore it was at the very first step of the publication.
If 2/3 of the reviewers recommend the article for publication it is published after the corrections suggested by the reviewers are done or a
explanation is presented to why not and it's accepted as a valid reason.
Now at this point the information is on the open, everyone can see it and most likely most of the people working on the field of the publication will
see it. If you wanted to cover up the info the point was before this, now it's of no use to try to smear it as its useless because every other
researcher in the field will base it's new research on the new information. No one will keep using outdated procedures when new better/easier approach
So here it's where it is know if something is fake or not, new people will try to replicate her results, not to see if they are good but to start new
research from them, and if they are fake simply they won't obtain the same results and in their publication they will say it could not be replicated,
no conspiracy , no male senior researcher involve ( does it matter it was a woman who fake the research?), no publisher responsibility, just the
responsibility of the main researcher who put her name on it and said it was good.
Now if someone smear her to cover up her methods? Well since it was publish if it was revolutionary several groups must had adapted they research to
them, if it works, they will defend their research and will publish it works, researchers have to justify the funds they get and they will try to the
end to do it, its their life on the line. Her own group will try to replicate her results, I don't think this is a point where something like this can
be buried, it is simply fake or real and many people have interest to determinate this.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason
edit on 3-4-2014 by Indigent because: tablet autofill