So, I'm reviewing a medical study (open-label trial) that compares the efficacy of different drug doses on a patient population (heart failure). The study is arguably of low-quality, compared to the landmark trials that established the benefit of this drug in this population: low sample size (~100 compared to 2000), short follow-up duration (~3 months compared to 16 months), open-label and without placebo.

The results the authors report are too good to be true - the study arm that can be directly compared with previous trials on this topic (same population, same drug dose) had a 4 times greater reduction in NT-proBNP (heart failure biomarker) than in the original study! And remember! Only in 3 months compared to 16!

Furthermore, during previous peer review, another reviewer suggested that it is a study limitation that no markers of functional capacity were available (6-minute walk test), and the authors just included it, seemingly out of thin air! (It wasn't previously mentioned in the methodology of the study).

Another indication that their data is falsified is that they report that all their measured variables were normally distributed - in my experience with similar variables, they are normally log-normal, not outright normal! (Although there is no proof that's always the case in literature).

The editor is seemingly hell-bent on publishing this paper, as it has undergone 4 rounds of review, and reviewers that reject it are being replaced one-by-one.

I know I can't reject this paper on the strong suspicion of foul play - what is the right way to tackle this?

EDIT: Thank you for your responses and comments. The authors ascribe the discrepancy to a different sample make-up, but it's (subjectively) too great to be simply due to the sample composition. As for anonymity, it didn't occur to me initially - I'll try to maintain enough ambiguity as to prevent a breach of blinding.

  • 24
    In case it gets published, you should raise your concern about the then-published paper on PubPeer.
    – anpami
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 12:59
  • 27
    Since you are (presumably) reviewing the paper anonymously, you should also anonymize your identity here.
    – Dan Romik
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 15:26
  • 29
    As it's been said many times on here, you do not reject or accept the paper, you only make a recommendation to the editor.
    – Kimball
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 20:29
  • 8
    "reviewers that reject it are being replaced one-by-one." Are you sure that this is a reputable journal? Sounds to me like one of these "author-friendly" scam journals (MDPI, IEEE Access etc.) Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 11:51
  • 5
    If you can see the authors' names, do some investigation into their financial ties. I once reviewed an intervention trial where the lead author did not disclose that they were the lead science officer for the company manufacturing the intervention, and a little sleuthing revealed that... which, along with a bunch of sketchy stuff in the manuscript itself, was enough to recommend rejection.
    – Alexis
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 18:10

7 Answers 7


In a comment on @Buffy’s answer, you wrote:

[…] my thinking is that it would be wrong to reject these researchers purely on the suspicion of falsified data - after all, I could be wrong.

There is a misconception here that is worth pointing out. The key thing to remember that it is fully the authors’ burden to convince you that the research is correct in order for you to recommend acceptance of their paper; it is not your burden to prove that some suspected flaw you are perceiving is real before you are allowed to recommend rejection. In other words, rejection should be the default decision for any research that doesn’t meet high standards of rigor and address any reasonable criticism that might occur to a referee. So for example, if you thought there was a 25% probability the research results were unreliable and a 75% probability they were correct, then recommending rejection (or at least a revise and resubmit to allow the authors to fix the flaws you are pointing out) would be the correct decision, even though it would still be the case that “after all, you could be wrong”.

Following this logic, if the results really seem too good to be true, then it’s up to the authors to convince you that they aren’t too good to be true, by increasing their sample size, shoring up any methodological deficiencies you point out, and/or rebutting your critique about normal versus log-normal distributions. Consider giving them the chance to do so.

Being skeptical does not mean you are saying the results definitely aren’t correct, you are simply saying you’re unconvinced and that you don’t think the paper should be published until it can more rigorously defend the claims it is making. As @Buffy said, simply state your honest opinion — that is precisely your duty as a reviewer.

  • 33
    +1 The fact that this seems to be medical research makes the application of this logic really important. There could be someone's life at the end of this chain. Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 0:12
  • 1
    @BryanKrause Medical research (or practice) is not my field however you'll forgive my cynicism that (IMO) there are medical decisions made without the proper or even reasonable oversight, often driven by wishful thinking or management goals. But I take your point. Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 2:26
  • 14
    +1 all research is like this. The authors failed to convince you they weren't making shit up. Reject.
    – obscurans
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 3:07
  • 2
    @BryanKrause: StephenG is right. Numerous if not the vast majority of doctors make medical decisions based on very little actual scientific evidence. They rely on medical or pharmaceutical companies to make the decisions for them. Those in turn make decisions influenced by money. For instance, one doctor who was the head cardiologist in an established public hospital did not know that MRI could give superior cardiological imaging with less risks than a CT scan, and said so himself when I asked for MRI instead of CT scan, and yet he baldly asserted his 'expertise' to have the final say.
    – user21820
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 15:57
  • 3
    @user21820 I like to use a horrifying truth disguised as a joke to illustrate this. There is a small branch of medicine called "Evidence-based medicine," which, by its very existence, implies that all other medicine is NOT evidence-based Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 22:07

Say to the editor what you say here. You can't prevent the publication, but you can be honest. Even if there is no foul play, if the results are anomalous then there are probably methodological problems, such as sample size.

You can recommend rejection. If the editor publishes anyway and takes you off the list of reviewers, you are probably better off. Tell it like you see it. The responsibility is with the editor.

  • 1
    I was writing an answer very similar to this, but you have beaten me to it. +1
    – Louic
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 12:57
  • This was my first thought too, but my thinking is that it would be wrong to reject these researchers purely on the suspicion of falsified data - after all, I could be wrong. On the other hand, if this is paper is published and is indeed falsified, it would hurt the medical community as it could be included in meta-analyses that are then skewed in a false direction... Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 16:09
  • 15
    @AnastasiosTsarouchas Say what you know, do what you must, come what may.
    – Lodinn
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 17:48
  • 7
    @AnastasiosTsarouchas If the way the results of the paper are presented makes you doubt their correctness that seems to be enough reason to reject. But the entire point of reviewing is sharing your honest evaluation, even (or especially) if you suspect dishonesty. The rest is up to the editor.
    – Louic
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 19:05
  • 1
    @Karl "We found 42 peer-reviewed original papers on this topic but 18 were rated as shitty so we do not include them in this meta-analysis."
    – silvado
    Commented Feb 23, 2022 at 16:01

''The editor is seemingly hell-bent on publishing this paper, as it has undergone 4 rounds of review, and reviewers that reject it are being replaced one-by-one.''

That's not your problem. Recommend rejection for the reasons which you give here, and then it's the decision of the editor if they still wish to publish it.

Edit: I should add, try to be tactful with your comments and don't outright accuse the authors of misconduct, at least not in such a blunt way. Even if you suspect foul play, you could be wrong.

  • 1
    And you might decide to no make further reviews for this editor or this journal.
    – usr1234567
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 14:01
  • 3
    I'm extremely uncomfortable with this answer. It's precisely because of this kind of response (just give your recommendations and then it's not your problem) that we keep seeing this repeat again and again, and according to the asker even for just this one paper. If instead it was made publicly known which journal this is, then reviewers will stop getting duped by the journal! After all, it looks like the journal knows the paper is problematic but has ulterior motive (sponsored?) to publish it, and so is trying to find scapegoats (i.e. those reviewers who accept it)!
    – user21820
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 16:17
  • 1
    Sorry, I don't really understand your comment. What do you mean by reviewers ''getting duped'' by the journal? How does ''the journal'' know that a paper is problematic, it is only the editor that accepts or rejects. It can be made public knowledge that the editor is doing stuff which is not moral or has some strange ulterior motive, academia is a small world.
    – Tom
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 18:41
  • 1
    ''It can be made public knowledge that the editor is doing stuff which is not moral or has some strange ulterior motive, academia is a small world.'' Although this might be problematic as seems to breach the theoretical anonymity of being a reviewer.
    – Tom
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 19:14

You can indeed

reject this paper on the strong suspicion of foul play

Tell the editors what you suspect and why. You need not prove that what you suspect is true.

If the paper is published you can comment publicly on it in any way you like without violating reviewer anonymity. You might tell the editor that you may (or will) do that, in hopes that they will take your critique seriously.

Unfortunately, once published it may be cited forever even if debunked.

Andrew Gelman's blog has much to say on this subject.

He responded to email saying

Interesting. One thing that I didn't see in the thread is that every paper will get published somewhere, if the authors want to get it published. So getting it rejected at journal A is no big deal; it will still appear in journal B. Or maybe it could make a difference, if journal A is an attention-getter such as Jama, but otherwise not.


I try to never attribute to malice that which may be explainable through other mechanisms, and I don't think you need to say "I don't believe the data is real" here, especially in context of the point Trunk made.

However, you are asserting that there is a well-established literature, using solid methodology showing findings quite different from what the current authors are finding. This places an extremely high burden on the authors to convince the referees that their methodology (statistical and otherwise) is correct, and that they've done all appropriate controls.

There are always serendipitous findings. Perhaps the authors have really found something substantial about the difference between biomarkers at 3 months vs longer term, and that would merit publication.

For me, the discussion section would be key here. How have the authors tried to explain the difference between their findings and earlier studies?? Are there other controls that need to be done? Do they need to extend their findings out to 16 months to demonstrate that the biomarkers return to where the published lit would predict? Why haven't they done that??

As I said, the required level of rigor that should be used when the data doesn't match the expectations of the literature is very, very high. I can't tell you how many times I've seen authors run to the community with surprising findings, rather than trying to hunt down the artifact or confounder that really explains their results, and this may be one such case.

If the authors failed to convince you that they've employed the level of rigor required to confirm a result that disagrees with a well established literature, I'd recommend that you recommend rejection solely on that basis. I'd most certainly avoid saying "I think they just made up the data" unless you're very sure that this is the case. That's a charge of academic misconduct, which is very different from saying "I think your science sucks".

  • 1
    This to me seems like the best answer. The suspicion of misconduct don't even matter. The paper isn't up to scientific standards, even if the authors had only the truth at heart. More needn't be said
    – Nearoo
    Commented Feb 22, 2022 at 11:25

Medical research is not my field as I am from a physical sciences background.

But I do know a bit about statistics. The dangers of drawing conclusions from small samples are well documented. For the initiated, just run up a simple R (or Matlab) program that generates n values randomly from some normal distribution with some stated mean and standard deviation. Then let the program calculate the mean and standard deviation based on this randomly generated sample. Print the data table plus its mean and std deviation.

Now run this whole program several times each for n = 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000.

The results should be sobering when you compare mean and standard deviation data based estimates for small n. It can change a lot from one generated sample to another.

It might also be useful, given the OP's observation that log-normal statistics is generally regarded as the most appropriate for the phenomenon in question, that the above simulation be re-run with a log-normal distribution.

If uninitiated in statistics, please get some assistance from a colleague in the statistics function of your organization.

You might append your tables to your review comments for your editor.

  • what you are recommending is basically to calculate the standard error of the estimates. One does not need simulations to do this for normally distributed variables. I think a much better approach would be to ask the authors for their a priori sample size / power calculation, without which any interpretation of the results would be limited to be purely exploratory.
    – LuckyPal
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 16:22
  • What I recommend is exploring the effect of sample size on data spread. Depending on distribution, mean and variance, the size of a sample of adequate precision can be estimated from this exploration. BTW, as OP says that this phenomenon is widely regarded as log-normal, it might be more thorough to use this for data generation.
    – Trunk
    Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 20:48
  • 1
    yeah, that's called a power analysis or sample size calculation :) there are dozens of softwares available, so one does not need to perform their own simulations. In fact, in any reasonable journal, description of a priori sample size calculation will be mandatory.
    – LuckyPal
    Commented Feb 22, 2022 at 11:09

Instead of reviewing the paper you can reject it, which seems that you should do, you could try publishing a note somewhere debunking the study, or at least indicating the issues it has. Scientific criticism and responses are not as 'in' today, but there are ways to at least leave a trace--the easiest one being ResearchGate. Another issue here is that it seems the publisher seems to have wrong incentives, which is a generator of problems such as the one you described here.

  • 2
    Sorry but reviewers should never do that.
    – Buffy
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 20:41
  • 13
    @Buffy Once the paper is published the reviewer can do that without saying they were a reviewer. Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 21:06
  • 1
    One of the advantages of open peer review is that reviewer comments get published alongside the paper for everyone to see. Probably ideal for this sort of problem.
    – rhialto
    Commented Feb 20, 2022 at 21:28
  • 1
    @Buffy An option is to resign from being a reviewer if negative reviews are getting sidelined. Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 7:39
  • 2
    Why is this answer so heavily downvoted when other answers with a few upvotes also suggest that the OP can criticize the work publicly if it is published? @Buffy, why can't reviewers criticize a work publicly after it is published? There is no need for the OP to reveal they were a reviewer. Commented Feb 21, 2022 at 15:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .