Vikash,

You may want to peruse the following...

Andrew Grey, Mark Bolland. Web of industry, advocacy, and academia in the management of osteoporosis. The BMJ, July 2015 DOI:10.1136/bmj.h3170

The following (even though it does not have a direct connection to your question) is very profound, and may be related to the exponential proliferation of papers in one facet of  biomedical research!

What scientific idea is ready for retirement?

According to Dr Azra Raza (see link below), the mouse models of cancer (animal models and bilions!).

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org 

Vikash,

The following links are reminiscent of your question.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

How to Make More Published Research True. John P. A. Ioannidis

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747

Horton R. Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? Lancet 2015; 385(9976): 1380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1

 Dear Chithan C Kandaswami tahnks for sharing Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and other links. You have published a lot of publications. In which category you put your publication and reference you cited in your work. Are you confident that all are right ? 

Dear Vikash Bhardwaj,

Thank you. I posted the links to the two articles by J.P. Ioannidis  to point out the discussion of the issue. It is only his opinion.  Needless to say that there would be an array of other opinions and responses.

To respond to your question, my earlier hands-on research was primarily on vitro evaluations, enzymology and in vitro pharmacology, and I have not published clinical research. I consider that the experimental results were correctly communicated. Subsequently, I have been involved as one of the participants (or collaborators) in conducting in vitro model studies and investigations with cells; I tend to consider that the individuals who performed the bench experiments shared the results accurately with rigor. As for the references cited by me and my authors or senior authors, how on earth can I ascertain the veracity of the findings? One cannot use hindsight to assess situations that happened way back (as they say, "Monday morning quarterback" = critiquing, criticizing or passing judgment from a position of hindsight).

In light of your question to me, may I ask you what  you consider about your own published work? I am also curious to know the source of your affirmation, "...$28 billion per year spent on preclinical research is not reproducible." Thank you! 

Dear Vikash Bhardwaj,

Perhaps, you may want to go through the following...

http://scripts.iucr.org/cgi-bin/paper?S0907444903003251

Acta Cryst. (2003). D59, 620-626    [ doi:10.1107/S0907444903003251 ]

A glossary of DNA structures from A to Z

A. Ghosh and M. Bansal

Abstract: The right-handed double-helical Watson-Crick model for B-­form DNA is the most commonly known DNA structure. In addition to this classic structure, several other forms of DNA have been observed and it is clear that the DNA molecule can assume different structures depending on the base sequence and environment. The various forms of DNA have been identified as A, B, C etc. In fact, a detailed inspection of the literature reveals that only the letters F, Q, U, V and Y are now available to describe any new DNA structure that may appear in the future. It is also apparent that it may be more relevant to talk about the A, B or C type dinucleotide steps, since several recent structures show mixtures of various different geometries and a careful analysis is essential before identifying it as a `new structure'. This review provides a glossary of currently identified DNA structures and is quite timely as it outlines the present understanding of DNA structure exactly 50 years after the original discovery of DNA structure by Watson and Crick.

http://nucleix.mbu.iisc.ernet.in/MBPublications/DNA_structure_yet_another_avatar.pdf

Every time the story of DNA structure seems to reach a conclusion, it bounces back to centre stage by appearing in yet another incarnation. The latest avatar to manifest itself is a stretched and overwound form of DNA reported recently by a French group1, working with single DNA molecules. When a moderately large stretching force (of about 3 pico Newtons) is applied, the DNA molecule apparently becomes highly twisted and extended, but even more amazingly it takes up an ‘inside-out structure’ in which the phosphodiester chain is on the inside and the bases are exposed (Figure 1 a).

Thus, while the basic principles and essential structural elements for protein structure, elucidated during the early 1950s, viz. the a -helix and b -structure from Pauling’s group3 and the coiled-coil triple-helical structure for collagen from Ramachandran’s laboratory12 have remained virtually unchanged and unchallenged even today, with only their permutations, combinations and linking regions varying, in the more than 300 unique sequence protein structures currently known, the structure for a single DNA molecule seems to be able to adapt itself to its environment by twisting, turning and stretching into completely different ‘avatars’. The last word in the DNA story has probably still to be written, but in the meantime Linus Pauling, whose biggest disappointment was that he did not discover ‘the DNA structure’, can now rest in peace, his structure has at last found a niche in the pantheon of DNA structures!!

 Dear Chithan C Kandaswami, thanks for your response. Yes its true we have no system to check accuracy of refrences cited within our article.  Regarding your curiosity  you will find it following link

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

it was nice to be in contact with you. You may contact at [email protected].

thanking you