[BostonCard]

Wasn't sure whether to put this link (sorry, may be behind a paywall) in this thread or the "rampant cheating" thread.

There is a worrying amount of fraud in medical research | The Economist

Yet journals can take years to retract, if they ever do so. Going by these numbers, roughly one in 1,000 papers gets retracted. That does not sound too bad. However, Ivan Oransky, one of Retraction Watch’s founders, reckons, based on various studies of the matter and reports from sleuths, that something more like one in 50 papers has results which are unreliable because of fabrication, plagiarism or serious errors.

The article focuses on clinical studies, and thankfully, neither Stanford nor our esteemed (or discredited) leader are mentioned

I am curious how this compares to other types of fraud, like corporate accounting fraud.

Still, yikes.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wasn't sure whether to put this link (sorry, may be behind a paywall) in this thread or the "rampant cheating" thread.

There is a worrying amount of fraud in medical research | The Economist

Yet journals can take years to retract, if they ever do so. Going by these numbers, roughly one in 1,000 papers gets retracted. That does not sound too bad. However, Ivan Oransky, one of Retraction Watch’s founders, reckons, based on various studies of the matter and reports from sleuths, that something more like one in 50 papers has results which are unreliable because of fabrication, plagiarism or serious errors.

The article focuses on clinical studies, and thankfully, neither Stanford nor our esteemed (or discredited) leader are mentioned

I am curious how this compares to other types of fraud, like corporate accounting fraud.

Still, yikes.

BC