- How do you think LaCour was able to publish falsified data in such a prestigious journal as Science?
As the case study reported, LaCour lied about his funding in order to make his study seem more credible. The people who peer reviewed his study might have thought that since these foundations were willing to support his research, that there must have been some substance to the research. The case study also reported that the raw data was deleted. Therefore, it would be much more difficult to verify the data; meaning the peer reviewers might have taken the results at face value because they had no other option. Also, the data that was presented was just modified data; it could be that since there was data and it was somewhat believable, the reviewers might not have investigated further.
- Why didn’t the peer review system identify the problems?
The peer review process entails experts of that area of science reviewing the new study. Perhaps because these “results” seemed so revolutionary, the reviewers were eager to have evidence contrary to older studies. For example, people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It wasn’t until Copernicus’ controversial model of heliocentrism that a scientific effort was made to prove this idea that went against people’s preconceived notions. Perhaps the reviewers thought along these lines; that maybe with the changing times, people’s attitudes were also changing.