It is notable that the 'original author's' paper was still in review. And that the review started, by a big-name journal, in Dec. 2014 - over 9 months ago. Whi

It is notable that the 'original author's' paper was still in review. And that the review started, by a big-name journal, in Dec. 2014 - over 9 months ago. While the newer paper was reviewed and published, by a no-name journal, in under a week. The discrepancy is huge - professionally, and scientifically. There is no reason a discovery needs a year in review - that is simply laziness on the part of the big prestigious journal. And that they're now being scooped by a competitor puts them in a poor light. This seems as much about the various journals as it is about the authors, and the universities. The new journal eLife is a wonderful happy medium - month-long high-quality reviews for a high-quality paper.