The number of articles that claims the authors used environmentally relevant concentrations continues to skyrocket. However, a recent study found that in most cases the authors picked the highest reported concentrations, even though they were in different environmental compartment.
I understand using environmentally relevant concentrations is essential in simulating what happens in the environment. Why do researchers claim they used environmentally relevant concentrations when they obtained the values from different matrices? Is this not an ethical problem? Is the increase of such claims indicative of a broken peer review system?
https://publons.com/review/1302691/
A detailed discussion on this issue can be found in this recent Viewpoint.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b04673
Attempting preemptively to divert future criticism of the work by specifying the point in the original paper.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics