How should that be possible? Apart from a simple plausibility tests? You won't find manipulation in good doctored data without efforts way beyond a review.
-
-
-
It's not all-or-nothing. Convincing fake data can take a lot more work to produce. Complete citations for collected data, including specific contacts, also makes fake data more risky.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yup the editors are supposed to do that (or put together mechanisms to do so).
-
I took Murthy's statement as a broader reference to the whole system.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Two steps. 1. Anonymous pre-review screen (scientific methods and interest). 2. Conditional acceptance based on open review. No wild-west of pre-print servers without screen. Early release of results.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Individually done it us not. *collectively* and with regards to reproducibility it is a good defense. The scale of some classes of modern science and the immediate ties in some cases to practical benefits makes it more challenging however.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, he isn't. It was VERY EASY to find it was a fraud. Many people did, different from NEJM, BJM, JAMA on the subject, which also had negative data about HCQ.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.