The breakthrough study announcing the creation of embryonic stem cells via cloning is being criticized for mistakes first noticed by a commenter on the PubPeer website who found some duplication of figures and apparent errors in labeling.
“Based on our initial in-house assessment of issues raised and in initial discussions with the authors, it seems that there were some minor errors made by the authors when preparing the figures for initial submission,” Emilie Marcus, the editor-in-chief of the journal Cell, which published the study, said in response.
However, Marcus added, while the staff is engaging in “discussion” with the authors, they “do not believe these errors impact the scientific findings of the paper in any way.”
Meanwhile, Marcus has defended the journal itself against those who have argued that the errors are evidence of a soft review process.
“A number of comments about these errors in articles and blogs have drawn connections to the speed of the peer review process for this paper,” she said, explaining that the “comparatively rapid turnaround for this paper can be attributed to the fact that the reviewers graciously agreed to prioritize attention to reviewing this paper in a timely way.”
Ultimately, Marcus argues that it is a “misrepresentation to equate slow peer review with thoroughness or rigor or to use timely peer review as a justification for sloppiness in manuscript preparation.”
However, not everyone has been satisfied with Marcus’ response.
One commenter, identifying as Jim Woodgett, writes, “With due respect, the fact that these errors passed through the expedited review is bona fide evidence that the review was not as thorough as is typically applied to manuscripts (in Cell or elsewhere).”
In the end, however, such complaints do not directly relate to the validity of the research itself.
As the study’s author Shoukhrat Mitalipov from Oregan Health and Science University stated on Nature.com, “The results are real, the cell lines are real, everything is real.”