Peer blogging the question marks of the Warda-Han paper's peer review

The Warda-Han paper was retracted from journal Proteomics exactly one month ago unofficially due to its “mighty creator explanation” (covered here first)/officially due to its heavy plagiarism (flashmobbed so efficiently by the Pharyngula commenters).

Yet we are still very short about the details of what happened during the pseudo peer review of the paper.

So here I’d like to participate in the joint blogging iniciative of Lars Juhl Jensen and like to ask my readers to scan through the detailed questions of the following scientist/bloggers concerning the Warda-Han paper:

Buried Treasure by Lars Juhl Jensen: Update: Warda and Han, one month after the storm: “To prevent similar incidents inthe future, it is important to know whether the editor and the peer reviewers overlooked glaring flaws of the manuscript or if the flawed parts were introduced after peer review.”

Pharyngula by PZ Myers: One month of stonewalling: “We want to know how this paper slipped through the cracks, because we want to know how large the cracks in the peer review process at Proteomics are.”

Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience by Steven Salzberg: Creationism in a science journal, redux: “Finally, I noticed that the Warda and Han article is listed by the journal’s website as the most-accessed article for the past month. Controversy brings attention, obviously, and Proteomics should use the attention to provide a full explanation of the Warda and Han fiasco.”

PS: I shot the picture last week: that is an editorial by Mr. Michael Dunn, editor-in-chief of Proteomics in Proteomics and another book – I’d like to offer it to Mr. Dunn – in the Wiley stand at PITTCON: