text: A University of Virginia student whose reputation was trashed by Rolling Stone's discredited tale of a violent gang rape on campus has taken the magazine to task for not firing anybody after its story fell apart. Alex Stock, a former friend of supposed victim 'Jackie', spoke out after he featured in the now-infamous feature A Rape on Campus, and was painted as a callous social climber who discouraged a rape victim from speaking out. 'I think the Rolling Stone absolutely should be held accountable', he said in a TV interview Monday, and added the under-fire magazine has risked its reputation by not disciplining Sabrina Erdley, the reporter who wrote the story. Scroll down for video . Taking to task: Alex Stock, right, who was portrayed as a callous social climber in Rolling Stone's UVA discredited campus rape story said the magazine should be held accountable . Rolling Stone's reporting was torn apart by professors from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, who pointed out 'basic, even routine' failures in how the story was prepared. The most important failing, they said, was not contacting Stock and another student, Ryan Duffin, who spoke out alongside Stock in an interview with Fox News's Megyn Kelly. Stock and Duffin - who were referred to by pseudonyms in the story - would have been able to tell Erdley that there were serious inconsistencies between what Jackie had told them and the story the article credulously repeated. Rolling Stone's story said that Jackie, sitting in a dress stained in blood from a gang rape by seven different men just hours before, sobbed to her three friends, who told her to take it no further. Still employed: Rolling Stone will not take any action against Sabrina Rubin Erdely, whose reporting was roundly discredited . The story said the three - Duffin, Stock and an unnamed woman - were preoccupied with the 'social price' of being associated with rape accusations. Duffin and Stock were painted as wannabe frat boys whose prospects of acceptance would be harmed. In fact, they revealed, Jackie had no blood on her or obvious wounds - and the friends immediately suggested going to the police, which Jackie said she was not prepared for. None of them was ever contacted by Erdley - in Duffin's case because Jackie had falsely told her that he had refused to contribute. When asked whether Jackie herself should have her identity revealed, Stock said: 'I don't see any point in further shaming her. Nobody can track her down, I've even spoken with some friends from her home town - nobody knows where she is. 'I think she's learned her lesson. I think the Rolling Stone absolutely should be held accountable.' When asked whether Erdley should be fired, he said: 'I think the Rolling Stone puts its reputation seriously at stake for not doing that. 'I think the next article she comes out with it's going to be hard for people to take seriously.' Responding to the same question, Duffin said: 'I think much more than anybody losing jobs or not losing jobs I think it's important that Rolling Stone and other media outlets look at this more as a story of what not to do in reporting.' Report: The Columbia Journalism School is expected to release a review of the botched story Sunday night . Many were sceptical when Rolling Stone responded to the damning review Sunday night by standing by Erdley, her editors and her fact-checkers despite the avoidable problems their story had caused. Jann Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, confirmed to the New York Times that everybody would remain in their positions. He defended Erdley's reporting, and described Jackie as 'a really expert fabulist storyteller'. Erdely, who went to ground as the row over her article erupted, issued an apology in the wake of the review, admitting 'I did not go far enough'. Her piece credulously recounted Jackie's tale the story of an anonymous student - referred to as Jackie - who said she was lured to the Phi Kappa Psi house and raped by a gang of seven men. Anonymous: Jackie has never been identified. Police officials say she refused to be interviewed in the course of their investigation . It described the ordeal, during which Jackie said she was passed from man to man in an excruciating three hours of pain, during which she was also supposedly penetrated with a beer bottle upstairs during a pledging event. The article recounted the event in vivid, graphic detail based on Jackie's account. It said: 'There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. 'When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. Describing the moment she supposedly passed out from pain, it continued: 'Someone handed her classmate a beer bottle. Jackie stared at the young man, silently begging him not to go through with it. 'And as he shoved the bottle into her, Jackie fell into a stupor, mentally untethering from the brutal tableau, her mind leaving behind the bleeding body under assault on the floor.' The review spelled out extensive contact between Erdely and Jackie, spanning eight interviews. Erdely wrote 405 pages of notes about the story. Jackie also spent four hours speaking to a Rolling Stone fact-checker. Erdely had asked repeatedly for the name of the supposed attacker, but Jackie said she was not 'comfortable' with the idea of him being contacted for the story. But they ultimately decided to rely on her for virtually all the information in the account, which led to inconsistencies not being discovered until after publication. Erdely asked Jackie again for the name once the public interrogation of her account began. This time she agreed - but it emerged she did not even know how to spell the surname of the man, referred to as 'Drew' in the story. Experts at Columbia concluded that Erdely, her editors, and the fact-checking department all failed to try hard enough to speak to the accused, and other people mentioned in the story. Claims: The story published in November focused on a University of Virginia student named  Jackie who claimed to have been gang raped by seven men at the campus' Phi Kappa Psi fraternity two years ago. Above, the frat house on January 15, 2015 . Another possible way Erdely could have found out inconsistencies in the story would have been giving fuller details to the fraternity and UVA when asking them for comment, the review said. Stepehn Scipione, the chapter president of Phi Kappa, was asked to comment on the allegations without being given dates of the supposed attack or any details about who was involved. He told the review: 'It was complete bull***t. They weren't telling me what they were going to write about. They weren't telling me any dates or details.' When the full story was published, Phi Kappa Psi responded by pointing out there had been no party on the date Jackie gave. They also said that - despite claims of a pledging ritual taking place at the time - the fraternity house was then home to no pledges. The review concluded: 'Rolling Stone's repudiation of the main narrative in A Rape on Campus is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. 'The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. 'The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing Jackie's narrative so prominently, if at all. 'The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine's reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.' It recommended that Rolling Stone tighten its procedures around fact-checking and offer more details when requesting comment from subjects. It also questioned the use of pseudonyms, and said the magazine should consider banning them. At the same time as publishing the review, Rolling Stone announced that it was 'officially retracting' the story, which has amassed more than 2.7million views online. The page where the story was hosted until Sunday night now redirected to the Columbia review, which has the subtitle 'An anatomy of a journalistic failure'. Sean Woods, one of Jackie's editors, described the scandal over the article as 'It's been an extraordinarily painful and humbling experience'. He later added: 'Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim; we honored too many of her requests in our reporting. 'We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.' In a personal statement released online, Erdely said: 'Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. 'I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone's readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the UVA community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article. She said that as a reporter she must: 'weigh my compassion against my journalistic duty to find the truth. 'However, in the case of Jackie and her account of her traumatic rape, I did not go far enough to verify her story. 'I allowed my concern for Jackie's well-being, my fear of re-traumatizing her, and my confidence in her credibility to take the place of more questioning and more facts. These are mistakes I will not make again.'
target: Magazine published A Rape on Campus in November 2014 issue .
  Graphically recounted supposed gang-rape of University of Virginia student .
  Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote article based on interviews with victim 'Jackie'
  Did not speak to Alex Stock or Ryan Duffin, who were portrayed poorly .
  They could have revealed Jackie's unreliability before story went to press .
  Duffin today took the magazine to task and said its reputation is shot .