[fivefives55555]

The question the editors should be asking of their peer reviewers is: why was neither this, nor any of the other glaring errors spotted during the process of peer review, a process literally designed to catch things such as this?

This is why I think that peer reviewers should be deanonymized post-review, to allow for accountability and open conflict-of-interest investigations.

[bjourne]

It's obvious the bar plot didn't have error bars when it was submitted to the journal. One of the reviewers must have complained about the lack of error bars. So the authors thought "wtf are error bars?", googled, and added some T's...

Deanonymized peer review has no chance of working since identified reviewers would fear retaliation for rejecting someone's manuscript.

[carlmr]

>Deanonymized peer review has no chance of working since identified reviewers would fear retaliation for rejecting someone's manuscript.

Rejecting would not be deanonymized, only accepting something with glaring mistakes like here.