The studies, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, were retracted shortly after publication, following an outcry from researchers who saw obvious flaws.
Instead of helping the scientific community, it misleads them.
DR NIRMAL--Misleading may not have been the intention , but avarice led to that inevitably. Difficult to apportion blames-- perhaps a short cut was adopted by the estimable authors to hog the limelight , by not garnering enough DATA to support their claim. The reputable journals were far to quick to publish again to stay in the limelight , and perhaps skipped or diluted the otherwise grueling peer review process!!
Regards-
I feel, most of the blame will go on researchers. The first principle of research is being honest in publication. Big publishing houses are business organizations, they want money. There are many such instances everywhere like this but the entire onus is on author.
Follow this link on this topic
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_the_medical_journals_bypassing_the_peer-review_and_data-verification_process_to_fast-track_the_publications_in_the_times_of_COVID-19_pandemic
Authors are always accountable for the veracity of their data.
Despite many instances of research fraud there is still no way for the peer-review process to ascertain the validity of data. Therefore we have no choice but to trust researchers who must be held accountable for this.
I think the urgent to publish more and the greed of becoming famous during COVID19, has lead many of our scientists, especially early-career researchers, to intentionally or unintentionally commit scientific misconduct. So, I think many other COVID-related papers may be retracted within the following year. This is also true about journals, who desire more fame through publishing several papers regarding hot topics, which can be seen even one of the best journals, frequently retracts or corrects COVID19 papers. The current issue is, unfortunatley becoming famous has destroyed authors/publishers' conscience, particularly during Corona outbreak.
Not being in the medical-research community, I can only provide an outsider's view, but "researchers who saw obvious flaws" is a big red flag for the publication. Peer review is the mechanism for minimizing such flawed articles, and that is under the control of the publication.
DR NIRMAL--have a look at this link: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/indian-origin-doctors-in-the-us-fight-charges-of-fake-research-based-on-fake-data?fbclid=IwAR1BFhYLhO0YO9_qTl328i-HembbnL0CeXJkAl_F8iEpwU7si-OBaGgvjSM
AVARICE ALWAYS MEETS ITS NEMESIS!!
I remember very clearly some transitions that were not perfect. In 1988 and maybe a couple of years after, we had a secretary who typed our notes on a special typewriter with math symbols, and she was very fast and made very few errors.
With LaTeX came a transition such that the scientists do the typing, with plenty of mistakes as a result. And we're still there - and it is a very stable tool, too. The mistake that one may make is based on the fact that everything looks soooo elegant - one can be easily fooled to think what you typed is correct, just because it looks so good. That is a dangerous mirage!
What with the increase of "scholars" and the need to cater every one of them, it is now a jungle that you can get easily lost in - and I definitely see - since perhaps five-ten years - a clear distinction between mainstream scientists, working with scientific methods with known boundaries and established theory - and light-weight alternative tools whose success is determined by luck, more or less (although there are exception where theory can be built also there).
I realise that there are problems that are hard to attack with traditional theory, but I would much rather stay on the side of math and work towards building a bridge to the more "practical tools", than the other way 'round.
The list of retraction is on the rise.
Retracted
Temporarily retracted
Expressions of concern
- “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial,” published in International Journal of Microbial Agents on March 20, 2020. More context here and here.
- “SARS-CoV-2 infects T lymphocytes through its spike protein-mediated membrane fusion,” published April 7, 2020. Our coverage here.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism