Gabriel, You are stating the obvious when you say that fraud can happen in peer reviewed publications. The peer review system is not bullet proof - it is meant to be a first line of defense against fraud.
Yes, it is possible to publish fraudulent data in a peer reviewed publication, but if the work is significant, others will try and replicate it. If it cannot be easily replicated, it will be retracted. Again, the bottom line is that, the scientific process does not rely on a publishers "sincerity" or solely on the peer review process, but rather, on the independent replication of the results by competitor groups. With regards to Samir's comments regarding an academic mafia that exists in the peer review system, I would say that the benefit of doubt is usually given to a well established researcher with a proven track record as opposed to a new entrant. In some rare cases a person with a sterling past record, can go rogue and start falsifying data (for example the Korean gene researcher) and thus get past the peer review system. However here too, the researcher had his work retracted when other groups were unable to replicate his work. In this particular case, his career in science was not only effectively destroyed - he also had to face imprisonment. Lying/falsification of data to get funding is a criminal offense. Marlon ----- Original Message ---- From: Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]> I wish I could agree with you, Santosh and Marlon wrt sincerity of research and peer reviews. A google on "peer review fraud" reveals that there is much to be desired in these matters in the scientific world. I am not an authority on these matters and indeed I may be proved wrong in my personal conclusions, but as the saying goes, "there's no smoke without a fire". Regards, Gabriel. ----- Original Message ---- > From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <[email protected]> > > Some years ago ....a Goan doctor - whose questionable study on > alcoholism made infamous headlines in the Times of India - wrote to me > indicating that most research in India is fudged. > > I am not sure that this Goan was or is an authority on "research in > India". I personally know many ethical research scientists who would > never to anything as unethical as fudge for the sake of funding. > > I have read the posts of Santosh and Marlon on this matter - and I > agree with the points made therein.
