David is spot on. A decade or so ago some researchers published a paper on toe-clipping in frogs in Applied Ecology. The authors used baysian stats to reanalyze data from multiple papers and it was published. Only problem is that they spent an entire paper explaining how the technique was bad, yet their data clearly showed no signficant effect of toe clipping unless you were clipping 4-5 toes on the same foot, and especially on treefrogs...something almost any herpetologist of merit already knows and has long known. I submitted a response back then, the editor said it sounded "too much like a peer review" to which I responded, "well, at least now it has had one." i don't remember the details, but the authors used fancy stats where they were not necessary, and statistically demonstrted no effect, but then wrote an entire paper on how bad it was. pretty screwy.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39 PM, David Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > 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): 637–41. 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] >> -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.” -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law. "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
