Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 19:16 CEST, "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)" <[email protected]> a écrit:
I had a look to this PNAS paper by Fang et al. I am a bit surprised by their interpretation of their Fig. 3: they claim that here exists a highly signficant correlation between Impact factor and number of retractations. Personnaly, I would have concluded to a complete lack of correlation... Should I retract this judgment? Philippe Dumas > Dear CCP4 followers, > > Maybe you are already aware of this interesting study in PNAS regarding the > prevalence of fraud vs. 'real' error in paper retractions: > > Fang FC, Steen RG and Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the > majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A > 109(42): 17028-33. > > http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract > > There were also a few comments on related stuff such as fake peer review in > the Chronicle of Higher Education. As not all may > have access to that journal, I have put the 3 relevant pdf links on my web > > http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_Misconduct_PNAS_Stuft_Oct_2012.pdf > http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_DYI_reviews_Sept_30_2012.pdf > http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_The-Great-Pretender_Oct_8_2012.pdf > > > Best regards, BR > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Bernhard Rupp > 001 (925) 209-7429 > +43 (676) 571-0536 > [email protected] > [email protected] > http://www.ruppweb.org/ > -----------------------------------------------------------------
