Reminds me of this other Nature paper which appeared to have many duplicated figures [0], caught by public review. The paper was later retracted [1]. Academic r

Reminds me of this other Nature paper which appeared to have many duplicated figures [0], caught by public review. The paper was later retracted [1]. Academic reviewers have a lot of responsibility and reviewers are often stretched thin. There are lots of open challenges when it comes to academic publishing, especially at top conferences/journals whose reputations add a lot of clout to the works they publish. At the other end of the spectrum, there are a plethora of low-standards conferences that publish what amounts to noise (which this MIT project amusingly calls out [2]). One positive trend (in computer science, at least) is the increased push for reproducibility and artifact reviews [3] which raises the bar for publications. [0]: https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1053948520535707648 https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1053948520535707648 [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0967-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0967-z [2]: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/ https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/ [3]: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-badging https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-ba...