The stem cell paper by Haruko #Obokata
has been all over the place, including BBC. None of the sources from outside of Japan mention the "dark side" of this story:
"Obokata asked American experts to undertake joint studies, but no one would agree to work with a novice researcher with no major academic achievements." and
"She submitted a paper to Nature, the authoritative science journal. However, not only was the report rejected, but she received an e-mail from a scientist who reviewed the report, saying she was taunting the history of cell biology." or, as put by another source: "Scientists from abroad have berated the study for making a mockery of hundreds of years of history in the field of cell biology. The team took five years to complete the papers." (http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Science/Radical-research-topples-traditional-views-of-stem-cells
Another article mentions she was close to quitting, the whole process took a toll on her health (in Japanese, http://sankei.jp.msn.com/science/news/140129/scn14012921250003-n1.htm
Good to see constructive criticism in peer review is helping progress in science (/sarcasm)! Of course Nature doesn't mention this in their article, they just state "her manuscript was rejected multiple times, she says".
While these aspects are worth mentioning in my opinion, others have pointed out (e.g. Dimitri Perrin @SystemsResearch and a Japanese blog post http://wirelesswire.jp/london_wave/201401310211.html
) that a lot of the coverage (especially by Japanese media) has focussed not on Obokata's discovery, but the "human interest" part (a young women!, what colour is her lab?, she is keeping pets!) - whereas the English media was more interest in her findings. Of course the findings deserve all the attention they get, but I feel in this case the boulevardesque reports actually helped to uncover some of the nasty sides of trying to publish new findings. #nature #peerreview