Weekend reads: Reading Nature and Science “very unpleasant,” how to spot fake journals

“It’s actually a very unpleasant experience to read a Nature paper, or
to read a Science paper,” — Randy Schekman.

1. Agreed.
2. I would add papers published in other Journals (e.g., N Engl J Med) and the vast majority of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) describing erroneous recommendations for the treatment of several human diseases (e.g., ATP III, JNC7-8, ESC guidelines, etc). Many recommendations in these CPG are not supported by real data (i.e., evidence) because competing interests of the author’s or – probably worst – the phenomenon of ghostwriting.

Retraction Watch

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about the backstory of an expression of concern, and Office of Research Integrity findings in a case that had its beginnings in Retraction Watch comments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

View original post 343 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: