Re: How & why scientific reports are published
IanD said:
I won't question it further - presumably the collaborators received their PhD, & their supervisor had a further publication to his name.
You don't get a PhD for collaboration, it has to be your own original piece of research that is a contribution to the overall level of knowledge of the subject or new interpretation of existing data. If you examine their credentials you will see that they all have doctorates for separate research. Atsushi Goto, if I remember correctly, got his for his hypothesis about the benefical effects of caffein on diabetes.
Hiroshi Noto 's professional affiliations are given in the standard peer review format, up front, notes 1 and 2 at the very top of the study and are:
1. Department of Diabetes and Metabolic Medicine, Center Hospital, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan,
2 Department of Diabetes Research, Diabetes Research Center, Research Institute, National Center for Global Health and
Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
and he either authored or co-authored the following peer reviewed research:
2013 Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
2012 Cancer risk in diabetic patients treated with metformin: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2011 Significantly increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2011 Asymptomatic coronary heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes with vascular complications: a cross-sectional study
2010 Autoimmune diabetes in HIV-infected patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy
2010 Substantially increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence in Japan
IanD said:
5. to collate and/or confirm already published research with a particular slant in view ....
6. .... even if the original reports have a different slant.
Slant? Do you mean hypothesis?
IanD said:
We have already seen that many aspects of the report are questionable
If there were any professional peer challenges, they'd be listed. Where are these challenges? All I have seen are some
vox pops published on web forum.