I'm an author on numerous peer-reviewed papers, and have reviewed several. No reviewer has ever asked for original notes, data, or other proof that our source data was legitimate. At least in my field, that is not generally how peer review works. The concern is whether or not the work is sufficiently novel, meaningful, complete, and otherwise worthy of publication. This work certainly is.
Same here. This sort of detailed info is very, very rarely requested and never in the peer review process. Only after a strong suspicion of scientific fraud and it is not part of peer review but of a special fraud investigation by the suspect’s university.
As I mentioned before, even then there is typically no way to prove that what is claimed to be sample one in the gel in the publication was really sample one as loaded on the gel by the suspected investigator. Unless the fraudulent investigator trips up and manipulates the data after it is recorded somewhere or some statistical test reveals impossible statistics or claims to use a reagent that’s they never had access to. It has happened but very rarely.
Last edited:
