Randy Read just pointed out to me that in their case-controlled analysis paper http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2009/02/00/ba5130/index.html
when considering lower resolution and other factors, the vanity journals seem to come out no worse than the rest. In any case I suspect any retractions are underrepresented in those journals because they fight it harder ;-) Best, BR -----Original Message----- From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ethan Merritt Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud Fang et al. claim that R^2 = 0.0866, which means that CC = 0.29. While a correlation coefficient of less than 0.3 is not "a complete lack of correlation", it's still rather weak. The "highly significant" must be taken in a purely statistical sense. That is, it doesn't mean "the measures are highly correlated", it means "the evidence for non-zero correlation is very strong". Ethan
