Firstly, the ethical quagmire How in the world did either of these journals allow a paper to be published that loudly proclaimed that there was no ethical oversight?
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is a FUNDAMENTAL issue for bioethics - researchers are not and should not be in charge of deciding whether their research is ethical
Show this thread -
And, given that this data appears to have been fraudulent, what is the ethical responsibility of these journals to correct the record? Is a retraction enough here?
Show this thread -
Moreover, what is the long-term editorial response? Retraction is good, but how can these high-profile journals prevent something like this from happening ever again?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you think the Lancet is having Wakefield Nightmares? (I know I do) DeJa vu?
-
Probably!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No ethical review you say? Cc
@davidtuller1Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Peer review doesn’t detect fraud. It never has. Science functions on an honor system and here is the flaw of that approach. We trust people not to lie, and overwhelmingly, they do not. This is a terrible fraud, but I hope we don’t overreact and treat everything as suspect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There should be an ethics committee review & data scientist/ statistician on every paper before final revision & publication as they can catch these oversights. I know when I review papers I am VERY concerned about not understanding the stats at times (ex Bayesian inf /PSM)
-
That being said I can comment on the science but not as much on the stats and as we progress in advanced statistical methods this also becomes a major concern to me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.