ArticleThe Journal of clinical investigation2019
Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: keeping eyes on your data.
Article in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The changing roles of scientific journals.mBio · 2024Review
- Reconsidering editorial consideration: Changing editorial assessment could reduce subjectivity in the publication process.EMBO reports · 2023Article
- Intratumor Heterogeneity and Treatment Resistance of Solid Tumors with a Focus on Polyploid/Senescent Giant Cancer Cells (PGCCs).International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- A critical path to producing high quality, reproducible data from quantitative western blot experiments.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Data we can trust.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Ayekoo! - Well done!The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Article
- Error publication (published erratum) in neurosurgical journals worldwide using PubMed during the last 30 years.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Article
- How to write a scientific masterpiece: an update for 2019.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2019Article
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
Recent reports suggest that there has been an increase in the number of retractions and corrections of published articles due to post-publication detection of problematic data. Moreover, fraudulent data and sloppy science have long-term effects on the scientific literature and subsequent projects based on false and unreproducible claims. At the JCI, we have introduced several data screening checks for manuscripts prior to acceptance in an attempt to reduce the number of post-publication corrections and retractions, with the ultimate goal of increasing confidence in the papers we publish.
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.