Oct 24, 2021 10:52 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 25, 2021 05:45 PM by C C.)
Why are medical journals full of fashionable nonsense?
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11180-...l#pid46756
"The point is that hopping aboard a political bandwagon is good for grabbing attention — and subsequently, funding..."
Scientist blames grad student for gibberish book chapter — a charge she calls ‘crazy’
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/21/s...lls-crazy/
INTRO: The senior author of a book chapter in the 2020 volume that Springer Nature has retracted for plagiarism has blamed a former grad student from Cuba in the affair — a charge she dismisses as “crazy.”
The chapter was retracted nearly 10 months after readers pointed out passages that had appeared to have been churned out by the fake paper generator Mathgen.
Titled “Ethnic Characterization in Amalgamated People for Airport Security Using a Repository of Images and Pigeon-Inspired Optimization (PIO) Algorithm for the Improvement of Their Results,” the material was ostensibly written by a group at Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez led by Alberto Ochoa-Zezzatti. It appeared in “Applications of Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithms for Image Processing,” which belongs to the 982-volume (and counting) Studies in Computational Intelligence series.
Last December, commenters on PubPeer including Guillaume Cabanac and Cyril Labbé — who will be familiar to readers of this blog for their exposure of nonsensical papers with “tortured” language showing signs of plagiarism — pointed out at least one problematic passage in the chapter... (MORE)
Yet another over-hyped study alleging phthalates as the cause of all human misery
https://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/y...ery-255725
INTRO: I’ve written in the past about the tendency of some researchers to compensate for weak study design or small sample size by over-hyping their research findings, particularly with the news media. Unfortunately, we seem to have another case in point with a recent publication, entitled “Phthalates and attributable mortality: A Population-based longitudinal study and cost analysis.” The paper was published on-line on October 12 and was accompanied by a press release from NYU Langone Health, which later that day was amplified by a CNN article by an author who has, knowingly or not, helped to exacerbate this problem. Noticeably absent from the CNN story is any perspective on this new study from independent scientists, something that once was standard practice among science journalists, but now seems to be rarely done, possibly in order to meet increasingly tight deadlines. The result is less objectivity and balance in media stories about new scientific findings.
Making numerous assumptions, including the most outrageous one, that the associations they found are indeed casual ones, Trasande et al then estimated that phthalates are responsible for causing about 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and more than $40 billion in annual lost productivity. They then called for further regulatory limits on the use of phthalates in food contact materials and consumer products, and even reducing or eliminating the use of plastics altogether.
Although Trasande acknowledges that his latest study does not establish cause and effect, his admission appears disingenuous, as it is buried deep within the press release and the CNN story in smaller font underneath headlines that the authors know all too well will grab the most attention. Moreover, additional quotes from Trasande directly contradict and/or dilute his tacit admission. For example, later in the press release he unabashedly claims “The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial well-being”. For such a statement to be true, it would require that the investigators had conducted a prospective, interventionist-type study whereby they took action to deliberately reduce phthalate exposures in one group and then observed a consequent reduction in negative health impacts. However, Trasande, and indeed no other scientists, have done anything remotely like this. Thus, his proclamation is NOT scientifically supportable... (MORE)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11180-...l#pid46756
"The point is that hopping aboard a political bandwagon is good for grabbing attention — and subsequently, funding..."
Scientist blames grad student for gibberish book chapter — a charge she calls ‘crazy’
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/21/s...lls-crazy/
INTRO: The senior author of a book chapter in the 2020 volume that Springer Nature has retracted for plagiarism has blamed a former grad student from Cuba in the affair — a charge she dismisses as “crazy.”
The chapter was retracted nearly 10 months after readers pointed out passages that had appeared to have been churned out by the fake paper generator Mathgen.
Titled “Ethnic Characterization in Amalgamated People for Airport Security Using a Repository of Images and Pigeon-Inspired Optimization (PIO) Algorithm for the Improvement of Their Results,” the material was ostensibly written by a group at Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez led by Alberto Ochoa-Zezzatti. It appeared in “Applications of Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithms for Image Processing,” which belongs to the 982-volume (and counting) Studies in Computational Intelligence series.
Last December, commenters on PubPeer including Guillaume Cabanac and Cyril Labbé — who will be familiar to readers of this blog for their exposure of nonsensical papers with “tortured” language showing signs of plagiarism — pointed out at least one problematic passage in the chapter... (MORE)
Yet another over-hyped study alleging phthalates as the cause of all human misery
https://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/y...ery-255725
INTRO: I’ve written in the past about the tendency of some researchers to compensate for weak study design or small sample size by over-hyping their research findings, particularly with the news media. Unfortunately, we seem to have another case in point with a recent publication, entitled “Phthalates and attributable mortality: A Population-based longitudinal study and cost analysis.” The paper was published on-line on October 12 and was accompanied by a press release from NYU Langone Health, which later that day was amplified by a CNN article by an author who has, knowingly or not, helped to exacerbate this problem. Noticeably absent from the CNN story is any perspective on this new study from independent scientists, something that once was standard practice among science journalists, but now seems to be rarely done, possibly in order to meet increasingly tight deadlines. The result is less objectivity and balance in media stories about new scientific findings.
For those who are unfamiliar with phthalates they are a family of structurally related, but functionally and toxicologically diverse, chemicals that are added to plastics that are used in a multitude of consumer and industrial products. They can be found in a range of everyday items consumers depend on to function properly, including food packaging, personal care products, medical devices, electrical cables, automobile interiors, flexible hoses, flooring, wall coverings, coated textiles, luggage, sports equipment, roofing membranes, pool liners and footwear.
In reviewing the toxicity of phthalates, a National Academy of Sciences Panel concluded that the male reproductive system was the most sensitive target for phthalate exposures, but that “… not all phthalates are equivalent in the severity of their effects. The phthalates that are most potent in causing effects on the development of the male reproductive system are generally those with ester chains of four to six carbon atoms; phthalates with shorter or longer chains typically exhibit less severe or no effects”.
Making numerous assumptions, including the most outrageous one, that the associations they found are indeed casual ones, Trasande et al then estimated that phthalates are responsible for causing about 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and more than $40 billion in annual lost productivity. They then called for further regulatory limits on the use of phthalates in food contact materials and consumer products, and even reducing or eliminating the use of plastics altogether.
Although Trasande acknowledges that his latest study does not establish cause and effect, his admission appears disingenuous, as it is buried deep within the press release and the CNN story in smaller font underneath headlines that the authors know all too well will grab the most attention. Moreover, additional quotes from Trasande directly contradict and/or dilute his tacit admission. For example, later in the press release he unabashedly claims “The evidence is undeniably clear that limiting exposure to toxic phthalates can help safeguard Americans’ physical and financial well-being”. For such a statement to be true, it would require that the investigators had conducted a prospective, interventionist-type study whereby they took action to deliberately reduce phthalate exposures in one group and then observed a consequent reduction in negative health impacts. However, Trasande, and indeed no other scientists, have done anything remotely like this. Thus, his proclamation is NOT scientifically supportable... (MORE)