The editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, has responded to Nature, which reports:
Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper, editor-in-chief Henner Hollert told Nature. “We were Springer Publishing’s first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level.” ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.
That makes it all the more mystifying why Seralini told us, in press materials and in a follow-up email, that the republished paper was peer-reviewed. It’s this sort of thing that made one of us (Ivan) say the following when a reporter from CBS News called earlier this week:
“This whole episode has taken us farther away from knowing the truth,” Ivan Oransky, a founder and editor of retractionwatch.com, told CBS News.
Read the full, original article: Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor
