Re: [ECOLOG-L] questionable publications

[Alexandre Chausson]

Hello Lui,

You may want to take a look at this popular site which monitors retractions
- http://retractionwatch.com/

Following your statement I would even add - even if it is published in the
top-tier journals e.g. Science, Nature, Cell which do experience higher
rates of retraction. Whether it's because the editors in those journals are
actual employees, because the articles get more visibility, or because they
take more risk to be the first to publish articles they themselves see as
'higher-impact' is certainly a matter of debate.

Alexandre Chausson
Lausanne, Switzerland


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Lui Marinelli 
wrote:

> Hope this isn't out of orderyears ago, a teacher had us review some
> bad, peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published
> isn't necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye.
>  Basically, these were publications that had obvious shortcomings.  the
> first were quite easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher.
>  I'd like to use similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my
> studentsany examples of publications come to mind?
>
>
> Lui
>
> Lui Marinelli, PhD
> VP Contract Administration, SCFA
> Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable
> Resources)
> Selkirk College
> 301 Frank Beinder Way
> Castlegar, BC
> V1N 3J1
> CANADA
>
> (250) 365-1269
> ( tel:2503651269)
> lmarine...@selkirk.ca
>



--

Re: [ECOLOG-L] questionable publications

[Malcolm McCallum]

David is spot on.
A decade or so ago some researchers published a paper on toe-clipping
in frogs in Applied Ecology.
The authors used baysian stats to reanalyze data from multiple papers
and it was published.
Only problem is that they spent an entire paper explaining how the
technique was bad, yet their data clearly showed no signficant effect
of toe clipping unless you were clipping 4-5 toes on the same foot,
and especially on treefrogs...something almost any herpetologist of
merit already knows and has long known.  I submitted a response back
then, the editor said it sounded "too much like a peer review" to
which I responded, "well, at least now it has had one."  i don't
remember the details, but the authors used fancy stats where they were
not necessary, and statistically demonstrted no effect, but then wrote
an entire paper on how bad it was.  pretty screwy.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39 PM, David Schneider
 wrote:
> Hello Lui,
> Here are three examples that got past the
> review process to publication, but were found to be
> fraudulent. - multivitamins, MMR vaccince/autism, and skin graft.
>
> All 3 were fraudulent, and so I think it is appropriate to
> name names.
>
> Chandra, Ranjit Kumar. "Effect of Vitamin and Trace-element Supplementation on
> Cognitive Function in Elderly Subjects." Nutrition 17.9 (2001): 709-12.
>
> Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A et al. (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
> hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in
> children". Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID
> 9500320. Retrieved 2007-09-05. (Retracted, see PMID 20137807)
>
> Summerlin, W. T., Miller, G. E., Good, R. A. (1973) Successful tissue and 
> organ
> transplantation without immunosuppression. J. Clin. Ivest. 52,34a
>
> google:  MMR vaccine controversy, Ranjit Chandra, William Summerlin
>
> Shortcomings can be hard to spot with fraudulent papers.
>
> Shortcomings are often easier to spot in papers where there
> is no obvious intention of fraud. Here is a publication
> where the data presented support a conclusion opposite to
> that drawn by the authors.
>
> Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64
>
> In this case I think the authors deserve credit for presenting
> data in a way that allows re-analysis.  Often that is not the
> case - the route from Tables and Figures to conclusion is
> inscrutable.
>
> Many students won't have the statistical background to spot the
> error in Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64
>
> You may  wish to consider asking students to look at the
> guidelines for reviewers from a journal of their choice,
> then apply the guidelines to 3 articles in the same journal.
>
> Then have the class share the results.  Some students will
> find problems, some won't.  The class experience  provides some
> sense of the diversity or errors that reviewers spot, and
> prevalence of errors in the refereed  literature.
>
> With kind regards,
> David Schneider
>
> Quoting Lui Marinelli :
>
>> Hope this isn't out of orderyears ago, a teacher had us review some bad,
>> peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published isn't
>> necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye.  Basically,
>> these were publications that had obvious shortcomings.  the first were quite
>> easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher.  I'd like to use
>> similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my studentsany examples
>> of publications come to mind?
>>
>>
>> Lui
>>
>> Lui Marinelli, PhD
>> VP Contract Administration, SCFA
>> Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable
>> Resources)
>> Selkirk College
>> 301 Frank Beinder Way
>> Castlegar, BC
>> V1N 3J1
>> CANADA
>>
>> (250) 365-1269
>> ( tel:2503651269)
>> lmarine...@selkirk.ca
>>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP
Department of Environmental Studies
University of Illinois at Springfield

Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology

 “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich
array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a
many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature
lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share
as Americans.”
-President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of
1973 into law.

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
  MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the s

Re: [ECOLOG-L] questionable publications

[David Schneider]

Hello Lui,
Here are three examples that got past the
review process to publication, but were found to be 
fraudulent. - multivitamins, MMR vaccince/autism, and skin graft.

All 3 were fraudulent, and so I think it is appropriate to
name names.  

Chandra, Ranjit Kumar. "Effect of Vitamin and Trace-element Supplementation on
Cognitive Function in Elderly Subjects." Nutrition 17.9 (2001): 709-12. 

Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A et al. (1998). "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in
children". Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID
9500320. Retrieved 2007-09-05. (Retracted, see PMID 20137807)

Summerlin, W. T., Miller, G. E., Good, R. A. (1973) Successful tissue and organ
transplantation without immunosuppression. J. Clin. Ivest. 52,34a

google:  MMR vaccine controversy, Ranjit Chandra, William Summerlin

Shortcomings can be hard to spot with fraudulent papers.

Shortcomings are often easier to spot in papers where there
is no obvious intention of fraud. Here is a publication
where the data presented support a conclusion opposite to
that drawn by the authors.

Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64

In this case I think the authors deserve credit for presenting 
data in a way that allows re-analysis.  Often that is not the 
case - the route from Tables and Figures to conclusion is 
inscrutable.  

Many students won't have the statistical background to spot the 
error in Mar. Biol. 9: 63-64

You may  wish to consider asking students to look at the 
guidelines for reviewers from a journal of their choice,
then apply the guidelines to 3 articles in the same journal. 

Then have the class share the results.  Some students will
find problems, some won't.  The class experience  provides some
sense of the diversity or errors that reviewers spot, and 
prevalence of errors in the refereed  literature.  

With kind regards,
David Schneider

Quoting Lui Marinelli :

> Hope this isn't out of orderyears ago, a teacher had us review some bad,
> peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published isn't
> necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye.  Basically,
> these were publications that had obvious shortcomings.  the first were quite
> easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher.  I'd like to use
> similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my studentsany examples
> of publications come to mind?
>  
>  
> Lui 
> 
> Lui Marinelli, PhD
> VP Contract Administration, SCFA
> Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable
> Resources)
> Selkirk College
> 301 Frank Beinder Way
> Castlegar, BC
> V1N 3J1
> CANADA
> 
> (250) 365-1269
> ( tel:2503651269) 
> lmarine...@selkirk.ca
> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] questionable publications

[minda berbeco]

I know a lot of teachers who use the now famously retracted article linking
autism to vaccines for this purpose. If you are interested I can put you in
touch, as they may have some specific materials that they use in addition
to the paper.

Cheers,

Minda


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Lui Marinelli 
wrote:

> Hope this isn't out of orderyears ago, a teacher had us review some
> bad, peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published
> isn't necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye.
>  Basically, these were publications that had obvious shortcomings.  the
> first were quite easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher.
>  I'd like to use similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my
> studentsany examples of publications come to mind?
>
>
> Lui
>
> Lui Marinelli, PhD
> VP Contract Administration, SCFA
> Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable
> Resources)
> Selkirk College
> 301 Frank Beinder Way
> Castlegar, BC
> V1N 3J1
> CANADA
>
> (250) 365-1269
> ( tel:2503651269)
> lmarine...@selkirk.ca
>



-- 
Minda Berbeco, PhD
MindaBerbeco.com

[ECOLOG-L] questionable publications

[Lui Marinelli]

Hope this isn't out of orderyears ago, a teacher had us review some bad, 
peer reviewed, published articles, to show us that what is published isn't 
necessarily gospel, we need to look at it with a critical eye.  Basically, 
these were publications that had obvious shortcomings.  the first were quite 
easy to identify the problem and then they got tougher.  I'd like to use 
similar publications to teach a similar lesson to my studentsany examples 
of publications come to mind?
 
 
Lui 

Lui Marinelli, PhD
VP Contract Administration, SCFA
Instructor, School of Environment and Geomatics (formally Renewable Resources)
Selkirk College
301 Frank Beinder Way
Castlegar, BC
V1N 3J1
CANADA

(250) 365-1269
( tel:2503651269) 
lmarine...@selkirk.ca