One of the hardest things for an author, and a handling Editor, is making sure
that the references list of a submitted article is complete, but is an easier
task now with our e-tools than in the days of the penicillin discovery. Another
case is that of Einstein's special theory article of 1905 w
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jrh wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> A different type of, post publication, fraud is the case of the discovery
> of streptomycin. See :-
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61202-1/fulltext
>
I can't resist posting this quite interes
CCP4-
intetesting topic and many off-target topics veing discussed.
John Ionnandis' work, who is an epidemiologist and statistician, addresses
issues in the design and interpretation of GWAS studies for SNPs and disease
associations in one hand and clinical studies, especially Phase III
inte
B@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of George
DeTitta
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 10:46 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
This gets us more into the philosophy of science but I've always felt
authors had a right to speculate in the discussion sections of their papers
o
ctober 19, 2012 4:40:35 AM EDT
>> To: Randy Read
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
>>
>> This thread has been quite interesting to me. I've had a long interest in
>> scientific fraud, which I've generally held to be victimless. While that
>> vi
AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
This is worth looking at as well. Suggests most papers should be retracted!
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Colin
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Carter,
Charlie
Sent: 19 Oc
On Friday, October 19, 2012 10:12:44 am Colin Nave wrote:
> This is worth looking at as well. Suggests most papers should be retracted!
> http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
A paper claiming that all papers are false, by someone named Ioannidis?
I wonder i
: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
Dom,
You've opened a pandora's box here, which I won't try to contain. The short
answer is both of the above.
I feel it is becoming increasingly difficult as a referee to be on top of every
paper I review, and as an editor it is becoming increasingly di
to the high costs of spotting them?
D
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Carter,
Charlie
Sent: 19 October 2012 13:09
To: ccp4bb
Subject: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
Begin forwarded message:
Date: October 19, 2012 4:40:35 AM EDT
To: Randy Read
UMAS Philippe (UDS)"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:15 AM
To: "Zhijie Li"
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 22:52 CEST, Zhijie Li a
écrit:
Thank you for this funny (and yet significant) comment.
But I do not see clearly whether you agree with me
Behalf Of Carter,
Charlie
Sent: 19 October 2012 13:09
To: ccp4bb
Subject: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
Begin forwarded message:
Date: October 19, 2012 4:40:35 AM EDT
To: Randy Read mailto:rj...@cam.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
This thread has been quite interesting
Begin forwarded message:
Date: October 19, 2012 4:40:35 AM EDT
To: Randy Read mailto:rj...@cam.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
This thread has been quite interesting to me. I've had a long interest in
scientific fraud, which I've generally held to be victimless.
Just a few additional ideas on the significance of the presented values
of the correlation coefficient.
For samples of size N from a bivariate normal with correlation r, its
standard deviation is approximately
StDev(R) = (1 - R^2)/sqrt(N – 1) - note that it depends on the number of
points used
On curve fitting:
http://twitpic.com/8jd081
--
From: "DUMAS Philippe (UDS)"
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 19:16 CEST, "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a
f Of Ethan
Merritt
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
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 complet
>>> 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: CC
[mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
Merritt
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
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
letin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
> Merritt
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
>
>
> Fang et al. claim that R^2 = 0.0866, which means that CC = 0.29.
> While a correlation
are underrepresented in those journals
because they fight it harder ;-)
Best, BR
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
Merritt
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
I think that the jump between "fraud" and "other quality indicators" is
a bit too steep for me. Poor quality indicators may suggest poor data
that the xtal was willing to diffract, a concept that to me is very
orthogonal to fraud.
Fred
[32m*
My two cents: the R-squared for figure 3A is < 9%, therefore only a minor
proportion of the variation (or random noise) in the data was explained by
the fitted model, taking a log scale may reduce that random scatter look
but the fit is essentially the same.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Ethan
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
> Merritt
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
>
> On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:52:48 am DUMAS
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Ethan
Merritt
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:11 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:52:48 am DUMAS Philippe (UDS) wrote:
>
> Le
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:52:48 am DUMAS Philippe (UDS) wrote:
>
> Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 19:16 CEST, "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)"
> 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
The fit seems to be driven by the high number of points in the area of the
graph where many points overlap. The points that catch your eye and establish
the visible balance probably do not contribute much.
Maybe this one should have been plotted as log in the abscissa for appearances.
James
Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 19:16 CEST, "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)"
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
retr
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
