Re: [Vo]:Another article about sloppy research and academic corruption
Good eye, Nigel. ... almost calls for an abbott and costello shtick ;-) Nigel Dyer wrote: At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature Genetics. If you have access to the full article you will find it says that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially flawed because they had based their conclusions on what is in fact an artefact in the data. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n1/full/ng.3392.html The original authors would have spotted the artefact if they had looked at the raw data. If you dont look at the data the paper appears fine, which is why it got through peer review. You cant expect the unpaid peer reviewers to load and re process the raw data. I only checked it because the papers conclusions conflicted with the results that we were getting
Re: [Vo]:Another article about sloppy research and academic corruption
At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature Genetics. If you have access to the full article you will find it says that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially flawed because they had based their conclusions on what is in fact an artefact in the data. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n1/full/ng.3392.html The original authors would have spotted the artefact if they had looked at the raw data. If you dont look at the data the paper appears fine, which is why it got through peer review. You cant expect the unpaid peer reviewers to load and re process the raw data. I only checked it because the papers conclusions conflicted with the results that we were getting Nigel On 17/04/2017 16:04, Jed Rothwell wrote: "The Impostor Cell Line That Set Back Breast Cancer Research It’s but one example of a major problem in cancer science." http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/04/the_impostor_cell_line_that_set_back_breast_cancer_research.html A reader comment: "If people knew what researchers were really like they would be stunned. Their personality type is very ruthless and dishonest work and conclusion is the norm. I work at a famous university medical center and we have a few of the 'stars' here. Most of the time it's the postdocs who do the work and the researcher is nowhere near it. Their name is on the paper but that's about it. The pressure external and from themselves to publish and succeed is insane." - Jed
[Vo]:Another article about sloppy research and academic corruption
"The Impostor Cell Line That Set Back Breast Cancer Research It’s but one example of a major problem in cancer science." http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/04/the_impostor_cell_line_that_set_back_breast_cancer_research.html A reader comment: "If people knew what researchers were really like they would be stunned. Their personality type is very ruthless and dishonest work and conclusion is the norm. I work at a famous university medical center and we have a few of the 'stars' here. Most of the time it's the postdocs who do the work and the researcher is nowhere near it. Their name is on the paper but that's about it. The pressure external and from themselves to publish and succeed is insane." - Jed
