Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38194106›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals.

Pranujan Pathmendra, Yasunori Park, Francisco J Enguita, Jennifer A Byrne

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Large-scale falsification of research papers risks public trust in biomedical sciences.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024
    Article
  7. Distortion of journal impact factors in the era of paper mills.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pranujan PathmendraSchool of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Yasunori ParkSchool of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Francisco J EnguitaInstituto de Medicina Molecular João Lobo Antunes, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Jennifer A ByrneSchool of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. jennifer.byrne@health.nsw.gov.au.
University of Sydney · AUNew South Wales Department of Health · AUUniversity of Lisbon · PT

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Ideas Grant APP1184263University of Sydney Research Training Program scholarshipUniversity of Sydney Rewarding Research Success
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high-impact-factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in some 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (251/6647) and 4.0% (47/1165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. Wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (91/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% (31/82) Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high-impact-factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorNeoplasmsPeriodicals as TopicBase SequenceBiomedical ResearchHumansMicroRNAsRNA, CircularMicroRNAsRNA, CircularcircRNAErrorGene researchNucleotide sequence

Identifiers

PMID38194106
PMCPMC11166861
OpenAlexW4390752346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.