Still employed: Rolling Stone is not expected to take any action against Sabrina Rubin Erdely, whose reporting was roundly discredited . An independent review of Rolling Stone's story about an alleged violent gang rape at the University of Virginia said the story fell apart because of 'basic, even routine' failures of journalism. Professors at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism issued a 12,000-word autopsy of the discredited story Sunday night, going through its shortcomings step by step. Rolling Stone bosses commissioned the review after the story, by contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was called into serious question. However, despite the uncompromising conclusions of the journalism experts, nobody will lose their job over the story. Jann Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, confirmed to the New York Times that everybody would remain in their positions. He defended her reporting, and described the supposed rape victim 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 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. 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.' Scroll down for video . Report: The Columbia Journalism School is expected to release a review of the botched story Sunday night . 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. Anonymous: Jackie has never been identified. Police officials say she refused to be interviewed in the course of their investigation . 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. And, they said, when they did speak to organizations, including the fraternity and UVA, they provided so little information that there was no way for them to check the events themselves and flag any inconsistent information. They said that had they reached out to some people named - specifically friends whom Jackie spoke to immediately after the supposed rape - her credibility would have collapsed in time to ditch the story. Erdely asked to speak to one of the friends - fellow student Ryan Duffin - using Jackie as a go-between. Jackie told Erdely he refused and was 'incredulous' at the request, calling the Rolling Stone article a 's*** show'. Duffin later said that Jackie never spoke to him at all. Erdely admitted that if she had spoken to Duffin and realized the inconsistency, she would likely have dropped Jackie's 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 misjudgements in my reporting was a brutal and humbling expereince. '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 resolut 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 wlll not make again.'
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' She claims she was raped by seven men and penetrated with a beer bottle . Jackie's account soon fell apart, and Rolling Stone commissioned review . 12,000-word account published Sunday, and recounted failures in depth . Rounded on Erdely and editors for not probing the account more deeply . Erdely is expected to apologize - but will get to keep her job .