Hello Lui, Here are three examples that got past the review process to publication, but were found to be fraudulent. - multivitamins, MMR vaccince/autism, and skin graft.
All 3 were fraudulent, and so I think it is appropriate to name names. Chandra, Ranjit Kumar. "Effect of Vitamin and Trace-element Supplementation on Cognitive Function in Elderly Subjects." Nutrition 17.9 (2001): 709-12. Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A et al. (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children". Lancet 351 (9103): 63741. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. Retrieved 2007-09-05. (Retracted, see PMID 20137807) Summerlin, W. T., Miller, G. E., Good, R. A. (1973) Successful tissue and organ transplantation without immunosuppression. J. Clin. Ivest. 52,34a google: MMR vaccine controversy, Ranjit Chandra, William Summerlin Shortcomings can be hard to spot with fraudulent papers. Shortcomings are often easier to spot in papers where there is no obvious intention of fraud. Here is a publication where the data presented support a conclusion opposite to that drawn by the authors. Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64 In this case I think the authors deserve credit for presenting data in a way that allows re-analysis. Often that is not the case - the route from Tables and Figures to conclusion is inscrutable. Many students won't have the statistical background to spot the error in Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64 You may wish to consider asking students to look at the guidelines for reviewers from a journal of their choice, then apply the guidelines to 3 articles in the same journal. Then have the class share the results. Some students will find problems, some won't. The class experience provides some sense of the diversity or errors that reviewers spot, and prevalence of errors in the refereed literature. With kind regards, David Schneider Quoting Lui Marinelli <[email protected]>: > Hope this isn't out of order....years ago, a teacher had us review some bad, > peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published isn't > necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye. Basically, > these were publications that had obvious shortcomings. the first were quite > easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher. I'd like to use > similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my students....any examples > of publications come to mind? > > > Lui > > Lui Marinelli, PhD > VP Contract Administration, SCFA > Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable > Resources) > Selkirk College > 301 Frank Beinder Way > Castlegar, BC > V1N 3J1 > CANADA > > (250) 365-1269 > ( tel:2503651269) > [email protected] >
