Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
- “Have theoretical physicists finally discovered a super-duplicate publication? Surely the existence of such a publication violates some law or other?”
- “Fig. 2 has been corrected twice, but bands in the actin loading control still look like mirror images,” a commenter writes of a paper in Diabetes.
- A query about a Journal of Clinical Investigation figure prompts a discussion of what was acceptable in 2002.
- “[M]any claims in this paper and other papers by the same group appear too remarkable to believe,” according to a commenter writing about a study of how to synthesize silver nanoparticles from a plant.
- Commenters question the methods used in a 2011 Psychopharmacology study.
Re: what was acceptable in 2002.
A 2003 paper by shared authors.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/A279FD58EA0B914A9A5BCF1BD3E79D
Re: what was acceptable in 2002.
A 2005 paper by shared authors.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F2BAC655FE178A360FD4E67EA4AB12#fb20184
Re: what was acceptable in 2002.
Another 2002 paper by shared authors.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/931161347C9AF2910BAAF650849963#fb20255
Wow. There are PubPeer comments suggesting that after a decade papers should not be scrutinized in detail. As if perpetrating a fraud on the scientific literature should have a statute of limitations!