Reply to Thread

Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2025 »

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rory robertson" data-source="post: 298010" data-attributes="member: 45198">borofergie...I hope you are well.  It's surprising we still keep being told in Australia that sugar is not a particular problem.  Blind Freddie and all that.So I've read Gary Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories since last we spoke, so I now "get" better where you are coming from (and agree).Anyway, I can tell you that securing a retraction is a bit like watching the grass grow: you assume it eventually will happen but progress seems glacial.  So I'll just keep chippin' away.  I was thinking on the topic of formal "Retraction" the other day and came across a piece in the prestigious science journal Nature.  It noted that “It is reassuring that retractions are so rare, for behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half [sic] are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400...” (<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/ ... 8026a.html</a> ) . So formal retractions are rising rapidly, and there is plenty of room for one more! The article observes that “Perhaps surprisingly, scientists and editors broadly welcome the trend.”  In any case, what was fascinating is that in the “Comments” section below that online story, I stumbled across a distinguished scientist at the University of Sydney who'd had a terrible time trying to maintain the integrity of the scientific record in his field, as the ignored referee of what he viewed as a deeply flawed paper: “The paper in question was scientifically flawed, grossly distorted the literature in the field clearly to progress the authors' stated personal agenda [relating to male circumcism]. The statistical analyses were erroneous. I recommended rejection, but after being sent a revised version in which virtually none of my extensive list of initial criticisms was addressed I stated that extensive corrections were required. When it then appeared on-line in advance... The paper in question should be retracted. I can understand that the Editors might be embarrassed that this paper slipped through in to print. But their failure to take any steps to date to address the situation that has arisen now leads to an impression of complicity. Is there a higher authority individuals such as me can turn to for advice?” (<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/ ... 8026a.html</a> ). That sounds familiar!  No, Professor Brian J. Morris wasn't one of the referees of Australian Paradox before publication; they were either non-existent, incompetent or - as in Professor Morris’s case - ignored. It's good to know, however, that at least one distinguished scientist at the University of Sydney is still fighting the good fight (<a href="http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/~brianm/" target="_blank">http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/~brianm/</a> ). Where are the rest?  Does anyone else also find the contrast appalling: one University of Sydney science Professor devoting himself to preserving the integrity of the scientific record, while just across the way at the University of Sydney there's another with a sloppy, factually incorrect paper refusing to correct the scientific record?  How would rubbish papers like Australian Paradox get published in the first place?  After all, I have been advised that the fact that one of the authors also was the "Guest Editor" of the relevant "Special Issue" of the journal would not have compromised quality control.</blockquote>

Verification

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to Thread