Renee Schwartz, a lawyer with Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman, has vetted manuscripts for publishers for four decades.
Dr. Angell says she vetted manuscripts that omitted any mention of a drug's side effects, and studies that were weighted to make a drug look good; she repeatedly heard about studies never submitted for publication because they made a drug look bad.
It goes without saying that the associate editors of the current team and the prior editorial team, under the guidance of Dr. Fonseca, have done a tremendous job in vetting manuscripts and keeping the hurdle high for ultimate publication.
As for Pegasus, Claiborne Hancock, the publisher, said a lawyer had vetted the manuscript.
An intern invited to vet a manuscript protests that she is not a reader.
She added that the publisher vetted each manuscript, but she declined to describe the process.
Others have questioned whether Green should have taken authorship on the paper without reviewing the survey data, and whether Science adequately vetted the manuscript.
This was notwithstanding the fact that the publisher had carefully vetted the manuscript before publication, and Bhargava had documentation to back up whatever he was saying.
LUSE participated in study design, and critically vetted the manuscript.
JCK coordinated the study, narrowed the initial study focus, participated in the design of the study, developed the methodology directed the research project, vetted the manuscript, refined the analysis/discussion of results and solidified the conclusions.
He asked an American reader to vet his manuscript, hoping to eliminate any slip-ups — the British "windscreen" for the American "windshield," that sort of thing.
