Read on Twitter
1 month ago 174 researchers/clinicians sent an open letter to the New England Journal of Medicine. The letter listed 3 specific reasons for why the data underlying Mehra et al could not be trusted.
Today the (expected) reply "I am sorry to inform you.." https://zenodo.org/record/3873178#.Xv6wGJMzakg
Today the (expected) reply "I am sorry to inform you.." https://zenodo.org/record/3873178#.Xv6wGJMzakg
your submission [..] has not been accepted for publication in the Journal. [..] After considering its focus, content, and interest, we made the editorial decision not to consider your submission further. We are informing you of this promptly so that you can submit it elsewhere.
Many independent groups raised concerns about the @MRMehraMD Surgisphere papers. This letter highlighted concrete reasons to believe that the data were fabricated.
Why did it take @NEJM 1 month to reject it and to sweep this under the rug? Why not openly acknowledge that an
Why did it take @NEJM 1 month to reject it and to sweep this under the rug? Why not openly acknowledge that an
editorial mistake was made?
Why not formally record these worrying patterns pointing to pure data fabrication & fraud?
And highlight that @MRMehraMD and his academic colleagues made a serious error appending their names to a publication with no knowledge of data provenance
Why not formally record these worrying patterns pointing to pure data fabrication & fraud?
And highlight that @MRMehraMD and his academic colleagues made a serious error appending their names to a publication with no knowledge of data provenance
I can understand that @NEJM wants to limit the damage.
But this shows the major problem in academic publishing: there are few (any?) incentives for post-publication review . And journals don't take post-publication review seriously.
@StatModeling has discussed this many times.
But this shows the major problem in academic publishing: there are few (any?) incentives for post-publication review . And journals don't take post-publication review seriously.
@StatModeling has discussed this many times.
Journals like @NEJM & @TheLancet believe that 2-5 anonymous reviewers will be better at spotting problems than hundreds/thousands of individuals who read it after publication. This is obviously silly.
So why not encourage post-publication review instead of stamping it out?
So why not encourage post-publication review instead of stamping it out?
This is the reason to choose open publishing models, eg @eLife @PLOS sponsored by institutions such as @wellcometrust @JeremyFarrar
A nice example of transparency & responsible publishing:
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008437
Shame that the "elite" journals can't follow. Pressure needed!
A nice example of transparency & responsible publishing:
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008437
Shame that the "elite" journals can't follow. Pressure needed!
