Search Results for: randomized

Data sleuth flags 30 randomized clinical trials from researcher in Egypt

Thirty randomized clinical trials involving a researcher in Egypt who has already had six papers retracted show signs of research misconduct and data fabrication, according to the authors of a recent preprint.  Ben Mol, one of the authors of the preprint and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash University in Australia, has spent … Continue reading Data sleuth flags 30 randomized clinical trials from researcher in Egypt

Weekend reads: ‘Published crap;’ randomized grant awards; ‘Problems in Science Publishing’

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured: How to find evidence of paper mills using peer review comments Journal retracts a paper it published with a missing table after author fails to provide it Which takes longer to produce: An infant … Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘Published crap;’ randomized grant awards; ‘Problems in Science Publishing’

Hello, reviewers? How did a study manage to say it was randomized, but also that it wasn’t?

A journal has retracted a 2016 article for a litany of flaws, including plagiarism and a massive self-inflicted wound that should have obviated the first offense.   According to the notice in Cardiology Research and Practice (a Hindawi title) for the paper, which compared two methods of threading a catheter into the heart’s arteries:

Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t

The authors of a study about spinal fusion surgery have retracted it after realizing the cohort study was described as a prospective, randomized trial.  The last author told us he believed the incorrect wording was added to the paper — and the title — by accident. Even though he said the journal Spine suggested correcting it, the authors chose … Continue reading Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t

Guest post: In defense of direct replication studies (if they even need defending)

Editor’s note: This guest post by Csaba Szabo is a response to a June 3 post by Mike Rossner on replication studies. We sent a draft to Rossner in advance; find his response below. The recent guest post on Retraction Watch by Mike Rossner takes a peculiar view of reproducibility. Rossner sets the stage talking … Continue reading Guest post: In defense of direct replication studies (if they even need defending)

Weekend reads: French agency’s research director sanctioned; AI data woes at MIT; is disruptive science over?

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately … Continue reading Weekend reads: French agency’s research director sanctioned; AI data woes at MIT; is disruptive science over?

Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

An Elsevier journal is investigating a paper by a controversial author after a Retraction Watch inquiry about the article. The article concluded that “placebo effects have a significant impact on observed outcomes” in both placebo and treatment groups in clinical trials.  The senior author of the paper is Harald Walach, whose name may be familiar. … Continue reading Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?

A correction to a clinical trial on a potential treatment for COVID-19 has taken more than a year — and counting — to get published. In the meantime, the article remains marked with an expression of concern that appeared in February 2024.  The Lancet Regional Health–Americas published the study, a randomized clinical trial of the … Continue reading Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?

Guest post: University of Toronto should take action on flawed breast screening study

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study conducted in the 1980s and led by researchers at the University of Toronto evaluated the efficacy of breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. Because the research was supposedly a “gold standard” randomized controlled trial, its results, published in academic journals and reported in the media, have … Continue reading Guest post: University of Toronto should take action on flawed breast screening study

Replication probe finds ‘statistically improbable data’ tied to institute in Bangladesh

A Bangladesh-based organization focused on development economics and its founder have been churning out papers filled with misstatements, inconsistencies, ethical lapses and “statistically improbable data,” according to researchers involved in an ongoing effort to replicate the work. One journal has already retracted a paper for falsely claiming to describe a randomized, controlled trial and data … Continue reading Replication probe finds ‘statistically improbable data’ tied to institute in Bangladesh