Looking for bad papers is like looking into muddy water. Givin time the water will clear and the truth will come out. As far as derailing the thread....people type and I answer. Especially when accusations occur.
No your link is to a site that looks at research validity - that is something very different from fraud
I didn't think about bad papers at all till you brought it up. But I don't think the scientific community is plotting against me.
There is no plotting against anyone except perhaps some puerile conniving (a la Climategate) around journals. The real problem underlying fraud seems to be unhealthy career incentives and disincentives.
The beat goes on. Two years: That’s how long it took a PLOS journal to flag a paper after a sleuth raised concerns Two years after being alerted to a questionable figure in a 2016 paper by a group with a questionable publication history, a PLOS journal has issued an expression of concern about the article. The paper, “Deprivation of L-Arginine Induces Oxidative Stress Mediated Apoptosis in Leishmania donovani Promastigotes: Contribution of the Polyamine Pathway,” was published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases and was written by a team based at the Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences in Patna, India, along with a few other institutions in that country. . . .
Do you have ANY and I do emphasise ANY idea how many papers are published in medical science each year? This is an obscure paper in an obscure field that should have been reviewed correctly by anyone who was going to quote it. AGAIN THIS IS WHY WE RELY ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
No because the thread topic is a pathetic excuse to try, unsuccessfully, to discredit published science Thing is - if we eschew all published science then what replaces it? Opinion blogs? I am sure that is what the OP would love since 90% of his links are to opinion blogs
Do you think the problem of non-replicability is a conspiracy theory? Do you think the MacArthur Foundation provided a "genius grant" for a conspiracy theory?
Journals retract papers following publication of university investigation by Retraction Watch Hari Koul Two journals have retracted three papers by a former researcher at the University of Colorado Denver six weeks after Retraction Watch first revealed that the university had recommended correcting the research record in 2016. Another journal has issued an expression of concern for a paper flagged in the investigation. Despite a recommendation that nine different papers be corrected and retracted, journals had, by last month, retracted just two papers by the researcher, Hari Koul, now at Louisiana State University, and corrected one. Koul, as we reported, had apparently failed to inform multiple journal editors of the need for corrections and retractions. At the time, Jennifer Regala, the executive editor of the Journal of Urology, which just retracted two of Koul’s papers, told Retraction Watch: “We were not aware of these allegations, so of course these are of grave concern to us.” She said that the American Urological Association, which publishes the journal, planned to conduct its own investigation. Continue reading
Major problem. Too many people publishing papers and too few people actually reading them. People use to publish when they found out something important. Now they publishbecause they have to publish something, anything.
This is a strong example of why it is important to include papers that have been reviewed and published by reputable journals such as PLOS.
