Nature Nanotechnology continues the discussion of journal peer review with a summary of and commentary on the recent Publishing Research Consortium report. Letters to Nature continue the discussion of double-blind peer review (pro, compromise, unworkable, need better data), as does the accompanying online discussion forum. [This same issue of Nature also includes some letters addressing duplication and plagiarism, and you all are encouraged to join the ongoing online debate on this matter.] Letters to Science bring suggestions for rewarding and rating journal reviewers (with, unfortunately, no linked discussion as is available at Nature).
And on the heels of intense discussion about the Dwyer et al. retraction, Science now publishes a “Letter of Concern” (a pre-retraction of sorts – “Science is publishing this Editorial Expression of Concern to alert our readers to the fact that serious questions have been raised about the validity of the findings in the Won et al. paper.”) the same week that Nature formally retracted one of its own reports when the authors “lost confidence in the reported conclusions … [and in turn] regret any adverse consequences that may have resulted from the paper’s publication.”.