Things that escape peer review, part 1 of many

A few weeks ago, I read an article in the New York Times about an article published in Science about supernova 1987A. The study of supernova 1987A provided clues about the source of cosmic dust that, for example, can be used to form planets. When I read the article (published July 7) on July 8, it contained a statement that shocked me:

"The supernova occurred in 1987 in a small galaxy known as the Large Magellanic Cloud, about 160,000 light-years away. It occurred when an aging star’s core collapsed, creating a violent explosion visible to the naked eye from Earth."

I then sent the following letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:
What astronomers actually observe

Sindya Bhanoo’s article of July 7 (“Getting a Handle on Cosmic Dust Caused by Supernovas”, Observatory) contains a gross factual error that can contribute to public misunderstanding of basic astronomy. Bhanoo’s article refers to the supernova as having occurred 25 years ago in 1987 in a galaxy located about 160,000 light years away. If the supernova only occurred 25 years ago, we would not have been able to observe it yet, because light and other radiation would take about 160,000 years to travel from that galaxy to Earth. The supernova was first observed on Earth in 1987, but it happened around 160,000 light years ago. This distinction is important. Light takes time to travel. When astronomers observe far into the skies, they are observing events that happened long in the past.

I checked the press release on the website of the European Space Agency (ESA), the agency that oversees the Herschel Space Observatory. There were actually several different articles on supernova 1987A on the ESA website, and one of them also contained a similar error.

In the meantime, a friend pointed out to me that the original Science article also wrote about the supernova as occurring in 1987:

We report far-infrared and submillimeter observations of Supernova 1987A, the star that exploded on 23 February 1987 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a galaxy located 160,000 light years away

I purchased a copy of the full Science article, and the error is repeated elsewhere in the article. I should note that Science is a peer-reviewed journal.

I wrote letters to both the ESA and Science. The editors managing the ESA website got back to me and they corrected their press release. Although the New York Times did not reply to me, they published a correction on July 13, 2011 addressing the issue I raised in my letter. (I imagine I'm not likely the only one to have pointed out the error to them.)

Although two articles intended for the lay public (the New York Times article and the press release from the ESA) were promptly corrected, Science has not, as of this writing, corrected the article or published any letter pointing out this gross error. So I hope you don't believe everything you read in Science.