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
