ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Assessing and Raising Concerns About Duplicate Publication, Authorship Transgressions and Data Errors in a Body of Preclinical Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The German Infant Nutritional Intervention Study (GINI) for the preventive effect of hydrolyzed infant formulas in infants at high risk for allergic diseases. Design and selected results.Allergologie select · 2017Article
- No One Likes a Snitch.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?PloS one · 2013Article
- An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Article
- Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2012Article
- Criminals in the Citadel and Deceit all along the Watchtower: Irresponsibility, Fraud, and Complicity in the Search for Scientific Truth.Mens sana monographs · 2012Article
- Retracted science and the retraction index.Infection and immunity · 2011Article
- A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences.Science and engineering ethics · 2011Article
- Clinical practice: Breastfeeding and the prevention of allergy.European journal of pediatrics · 2010Review
- Conflict of interest in science communication: more than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009.Croatian medical journal · 2010Article
- Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2008Article
- What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?Vascular health and risk management · 2007Review
- Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006Review
- Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
- Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.