Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction: Implications for the peer-review process.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021
   Article
2. The 1-h fraud detection challenge.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2021
   Review
3. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.Scientometrics · 2019
   Article
4. Stem cell in urology-are we at the cusp of a new era?Translational andrology and urology · 2018
   Review
5. On (scientific) integrity: conceptual clarification.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2018
   Article
6. Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure.Royal Society open science · 2018
   Article
7. Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'.Science and engineering ethics · 2017
   Article
8. Knowledge and Perception about Clinical Research Shapes Behavior: Face to Face Survey in Korean General Public.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016
   Article
9. The Cost of Scientific Misconduct.Pediatric research · 2015
   Article
10. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2015
    Article
11. Inflation of impact factors by journal self-citation in cardiovascular science.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013
    Article
12. The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2009
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as