The reviews of a STAP paper submitted to and rejected by the journal Science in 2012 were posted at Retraction Watch yesterday. They filled in some gaps in the puzzle of the series of events that led to such flawed science being published in Nature in January 2014, but the reviews also raised more questions.
Today, more STAP paper reviews have surfaced.
ScienceInsider posted a piece with additional STAP paper reviews with these coming from Nature reviewers commenting on what would later become accepted and published by Nature only months later in seemingly only moderately revised form.
The Nature reviews (you can read them here on the Science website) are very critical of the STAP papers and raise a host of important, largely still unanswered questions about STAP.
My overall sense is that the three reviewers did a thorough and fair job of reviewing these STAP papers. It sure seems that none of the three reviewers were even remotely close to being comfortable with these papers being published in Nature. In each case it would seem that a major revision would have been necessary prior to even having a remote chance at publication. One of the reviewers summed up a STAP cell article as essentially reporting an unproven, “magical” approach (see screenshot above).
The ball is now firmly in Nature‘s court to facilitate a thorough understanding of the STAP situation. It seems reasonable to expect more from Nature than its one editorial that shrugged off any significant responsibility including this key portion:
“We have concluded that we and the referees could not have detected the problems that fatally undermined the papers. The referees’ rigorous reports quite rightly took on trust what was presented in the papers.”
Nature‘s own reviewers’ comments would seem to directly challenge this statement.
I’m not going to go through all of these criticisms and questions raised in these reviews of the originally submitted Nature STAP papers point-by-point, but the overall consensus was that these papers were seriously flawed. This fits well with the gestalt of the reviewer comments on the rejected STAP/SAC paper at Science.
If you look at the published STAP cell Nature papers and think about the details mentioned in these acidic reviews of the original forms of the same papers, there is a sense that not much fundamentally was improved in the papers during that intervening period of months.
The big question remains then: how did these STAP papers go from being rebuffed based on scathing reviews at Nature on April 4, 2013 to acceptance by the same journal on December 20, 2013 and publication about a month later?