As reported by the National Law Journal, a federal judge in Boston has denied Saad’s requests to stop the ADA’s flagship journal, Diabetes, from publishing expressions of concern about four of Saad’s papers, and to prevent the journal from retracting the studies.
As Retraction Watch readers know, public health officials are concerned about a U.S. measles outbreak. As The New York Times notes:
The United States has already had more cases of measles in the first month of 2015 than the number that is typically diagnosed in a full year. This follows a year in which the number of cases was several times more than the average since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated in the United States.
On Friday, we reported on the retraction and republication of a paper in The Lancet. One of the paper’s authors, Yale’s Harlan Krumholz, took issue with how we characterized the reason for the retraction. We offered him a chance to write a guest post about the situation, which we are pleased to publish below. Please see our editor’s note at the end.
Retraction Watch has grown to play a very important role in promoting responsible conduct of scientific research. Its quest to ‘track retractions as a window into the scientific process’ performs a great service to society. They also have a great responsibility to be accurate in their characterizations of retractions, as all are not alike. I was disappointed that they, in my opinion, mischaracterized the reason for a retraction and republication of one of my papers and did not want to retract their own story (do they have a process to evaluate such concerns?). They said that the retraction occurred because of a major statistical error, when, in my opinion, it was the result of a minor statistical error that affected the results in a very minor way and had no effect on the conclusion. That seems like a more accurate characterization to me. And it makes a difference to the impression of what happened.
