Alexey Bersenev · @cells_nnm
20th Feb 2014 from TwitLonger
My concerns with coverage of STAP by Nature:
See - http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738 by @Cyranoski
1) Nature News does not hyperlink to blog post/ articles/ evaluations/ discussions, which have been mentioned in the text. This is not an accident or mistake, as have been noticed by @Richvn (https://twitter.com/Richvn/status/435598534016901120). It's a normal practice for Nature News. I'm observing it over and over again in the last 5 years in any coverage of stem cell news (see example: http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-transplant-claims-debunked-1.11584 where @pknoepfler was not acknowledged as a person who initiated an investigation and figured out the false claim). In scientific journalism, every claim must be linked to appropriate original source. Nature consistently refuses to acknowledge bloggers, online discussions and other web resources with valid credible information. This is not acceptable for sci journalism.
2) Nature did not address the major concern with STAP paper data, asked here -
http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738/#comment-1249404367
3) Nature does not respond to any comment, related to the story (see link above and http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738/#comment-1249277736). Neither article's author nor any Nature editor responded. What is the point of commenting section then?
4) Nature does not requested detailed protocol from STAP paper authors, even though reproducibility issues could be expected (during review process). So, Nature can asked authors to publish detailed protocol together with article in supplement or extended "methods section" or in Nature Methods/ Protocols.
5) Nature decided to granted open access to STAP paper by request of @pknoepfler. By doing so, Nature opened a "can of worms" - why only STAP paper and why only by @pknoepfler request? There is no doubt that papers like that should be published in OA in the first place! Paywalling of such "methodological and hot" papers is against the science and against reproducibility efforts.