Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 October 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.985
News
Row at US journal widens
Three papers caught up in journal probe of review process.
A dispute between the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and an academy member has put the fate of three studies in question. In the wake of rows over a controversial paper published by the journal online in August — but not in print — two additional papers linked to the same academy member are now in limbo.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
A rather predictable outcome for 'Track I', which has built-in conflicts of interest. A co-author hand-picks referees and ushers the process along with no tracking system monitoring the results. This story leaves me wondering only how often this system is abused. Perhaps it is not too charitable to interpret Margulis's actions as stubbornly stretching the system to get a high-profile publication for a result in which she has confidence, but which her peers doubt. However, it seems odd to me that an elite journal should have a process that favors this type of self-determined justification.