Jan 17, 2021 01:26 AM
(This post was last modified: Jan 17, 2021 02:13 AM by C C.)
Why is Peter Doshi still an editor at The BMJ?
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/01/...t-the-bmj/
INTRO: Peter Doshi is at least borderline antivaccine and has been casting doubt on vaccine efficacy since 2009. Earlier this month, he posted a badly flawed “analysis” casting doubt on the efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. Why does The BMJ still employ him? (MORE)
Another scam paper published in a “scientific” journal
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/01/1...c-journal/
EXCERPTS: I’ve written before about predatory scientific journals: those fly-by-night venues that will publish nearly any submitted paper, however dreadful. Their motive is to get the thousands of dollars in “publication fees” that authors are forced to pay. In return, the authors get to cite their paper on their c.v.s, even though most papers in these journals are worthless. (Those who evaluate c.v.s, however, often don’t know which journals are bogus.)
[...] Now we have another of these hoax papers, also dealing with “fishy” birds. This one, published by Martin Stervander and Danny Haelewaters, appears in in Oceanography & Fisheries. It’s still up (click on the screenshot), but won’t be for long (I have a pdf for you if it’s taken down). The premise and thesis is also bull-goose loony, again on purpose. ... Any good reviewer would have spotted this in an instant as a Poe, but of course these journals don’t care about quality, or even seriousness. I doubt the reviewers even read the papers... (MORE - details)
“There can be no justification for such studies”: Paper on artificial eyes for dogs earns expression of concern
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/15/t...f-concern/
INTRO: A journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2020 paper by researchers in Korea who have used 3-D printing to create artificial eyes for dogs. The study triggered a slew of critical comments from readers, who were outraged by the ethics of the research and what they saw as inadequate protections for the animals against pain. The paper is titled “Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: A preliminary study,” and the senior author is Kyung-Mee Park, of Chungbuk National University. According to the abstract... (MORE
What do you do when you realize years of your published work is built on an error?
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/12/t...my-career/
EXCERPTS: . . . After realizing her group’s mistake, Smith turned to a trusted colleague for advice. She says the colleague told her that “despite the fact that you really care about this receptor, no one else in the world really gives a toss about it.”
In essence, the sentiment was: Weigh the damage done by letting an error affect a few niche publications against the potential fallout and long-term career damage it would do to her and her team. And for that day Smith was almost convinced that keeping quiet to protect her team was the best option.
After hours of turmoil, Smith realized that her colleague’s line of reasoning - that she could ignore her error and just move on - was “utter bullshit,” she says. It didn’t matter whether or not anyone else cared about the receptor; feigning ignorance was wrong.
You just have to do the right thing, Smith says, “even though it’s the most painful thing you’ll ever do.” She couldn’t spend the rest of her career wondering how much damage her error would cause. She alerted her institutes about the error ... and, shortly after, the journals involved. She decided that total transparency was the best path.
After making that choice, “The weight just lifted off my shoulders; it was the right decision,” Smith says. She was committed to doing the right thing, but knew she’d have to face consequences. Months after Smith’s realization of the error, she found herself in the heart of a storm. She was immensely stressed, getting regular phone calls from the investigators at her institute, whose funding body required them to launch a preliminary investigation to see if there were signs of misconduct, Smith says.
[...] The process of retracting the ... paper was “relatively pain-free,” Ngo says. But the problems with the other work ... were more nuanced. The error invalidated their experimental results, but the paper was built around a methodology which remained unaffected, Smith says. What do you do when part of your article collapses in a heap while the rest is still sound?
[...] “I think everyone’s been through quite a major trauma,” Smith says.“[I]t’s been horrific for me, obviously, and for my staff,” she says, but adds that it’s important for people to consider: what happens when the scientific literature needs to change due to an honest mistake?
The idea that someone could look her up, see that one of her papers was retracted without knowing the backstory, and jump to the conclusion that she was responsible for data falsification “still makes me feel sick,” Smith says. Beyond the stress, the experience took an emotional toll on her. She said it made her fall “out of love with science.”
Her husband, an engineer, wondered why she bothered with a community that would put her through such a trial on top of all the funding competition and other challenges scientists put up with. “My husband, I think, hated science,” she says.
Coleman [...] says he “didn’t have grand ambitions of being a professor someday.” He was stressed but didn’t worry about the retraction ruining his career. He is now working for the Australian government and says he is perfectly happy being out of academia.
Ngo was much more concerned. Unlike Coleman, he was determined to pursue a career in academia, and the mark of a retraction could, theoretically at least, be much more of a hindrance. [...] Ngo transitioned from Kufareva’s lab to a post-doc at the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, in La Jolla, Calif., for funding reasons, he says, but so far, he’s been unaffected by the retraction.
Now Smith and her lab members can joke about the experience, though she has also added much stricter policies around keeping lab records - to the extent that new students may be intimidated by them. She still worries that she may have let down her team. “She hasn’t let anyone down,” Coleman, the former post-doc, says. “I think she would have let people down if she had decided to pretend this whole thing never happened that not speak up about it.” (MORE - details)
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/01/...t-the-bmj/
INTRO: Peter Doshi is at least borderline antivaccine and has been casting doubt on vaccine efficacy since 2009. Earlier this month, he posted a badly flawed “analysis” casting doubt on the efficacy of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. Why does The BMJ still employ him? (MORE)
Another scam paper published in a “scientific” journal
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/01/1...c-journal/
EXCERPTS: I’ve written before about predatory scientific journals: those fly-by-night venues that will publish nearly any submitted paper, however dreadful. Their motive is to get the thousands of dollars in “publication fees” that authors are forced to pay. In return, the authors get to cite their paper on their c.v.s, even though most papers in these journals are worthless. (Those who evaluate c.v.s, however, often don’t know which journals are bogus.)
[...] Now we have another of these hoax papers, also dealing with “fishy” birds. This one, published by Martin Stervander and Danny Haelewaters, appears in in Oceanography & Fisheries. It’s still up (click on the screenshot), but won’t be for long (I have a pdf for you if it’s taken down). The premise and thesis is also bull-goose loony, again on purpose. ... Any good reviewer would have spotted this in an instant as a Poe, but of course these journals don’t care about quality, or even seriousness. I doubt the reviewers even read the papers... (MORE - details)
“There can be no justification for such studies”: Paper on artificial eyes for dogs earns expression of concern
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/15/t...f-concern/
INTRO: A journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2020 paper by researchers in Korea who have used 3-D printing to create artificial eyes for dogs. The study triggered a slew of critical comments from readers, who were outraged by the ethics of the research and what they saw as inadequate protections for the animals against pain. The paper is titled “Custom-made artificial eyes using 3D printing for dogs: A preliminary study,” and the senior author is Kyung-Mee Park, of Chungbuk National University. According to the abstract... (MORE
What do you do when you realize years of your published work is built on an error?
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/12/t...my-career/
EXCERPTS: . . . After realizing her group’s mistake, Smith turned to a trusted colleague for advice. She says the colleague told her that “despite the fact that you really care about this receptor, no one else in the world really gives a toss about it.”
In essence, the sentiment was: Weigh the damage done by letting an error affect a few niche publications against the potential fallout and long-term career damage it would do to her and her team. And for that day Smith was almost convinced that keeping quiet to protect her team was the best option.
After hours of turmoil, Smith realized that her colleague’s line of reasoning - that she could ignore her error and just move on - was “utter bullshit,” she says. It didn’t matter whether or not anyone else cared about the receptor; feigning ignorance was wrong.
You just have to do the right thing, Smith says, “even though it’s the most painful thing you’ll ever do.” She couldn’t spend the rest of her career wondering how much damage her error would cause. She alerted her institutes about the error ... and, shortly after, the journals involved. She decided that total transparency was the best path.
After making that choice, “The weight just lifted off my shoulders; it was the right decision,” Smith says. She was committed to doing the right thing, but knew she’d have to face consequences. Months after Smith’s realization of the error, she found herself in the heart of a storm. She was immensely stressed, getting regular phone calls from the investigators at her institute, whose funding body required them to launch a preliminary investigation to see if there were signs of misconduct, Smith says.
[...] The process of retracting the ... paper was “relatively pain-free,” Ngo says. But the problems with the other work ... were more nuanced. The error invalidated their experimental results, but the paper was built around a methodology which remained unaffected, Smith says. What do you do when part of your article collapses in a heap while the rest is still sound?
[...] “I think everyone’s been through quite a major trauma,” Smith says.“[I]t’s been horrific for me, obviously, and for my staff,” she says, but adds that it’s important for people to consider: what happens when the scientific literature needs to change due to an honest mistake?
The idea that someone could look her up, see that one of her papers was retracted without knowing the backstory, and jump to the conclusion that she was responsible for data falsification “still makes me feel sick,” Smith says. Beyond the stress, the experience took an emotional toll on her. She said it made her fall “out of love with science.”
Her husband, an engineer, wondered why she bothered with a community that would put her through such a trial on top of all the funding competition and other challenges scientists put up with. “My husband, I think, hated science,” she says.
Coleman [...] says he “didn’t have grand ambitions of being a professor someday.” He was stressed but didn’t worry about the retraction ruining his career. He is now working for the Australian government and says he is perfectly happy being out of academia.
Ngo was much more concerned. Unlike Coleman, he was determined to pursue a career in academia, and the mark of a retraction could, theoretically at least, be much more of a hindrance. [...] Ngo transitioned from Kufareva’s lab to a post-doc at the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, in La Jolla, Calif., for funding reasons, he says, but so far, he’s been unaffected by the retraction.
Now Smith and her lab members can joke about the experience, though she has also added much stricter policies around keeping lab records - to the extent that new students may be intimidated by them. She still worries that she may have let down her team. “She hasn’t let anyone down,” Coleman, the former post-doc, says. “I think she would have let people down if she had decided to pretend this whole thing never happened that not speak up about it.” (MORE - details)
