The Weekend Australian on the Sudbo fraud

On January 16, IPBiz discussed the Sudbo fraud involving a fabrication published in the journal The Lancet.

Here's how the Daily Australian set up the story:

WHEN a trial of 908 volunteers found that using anti-inflammatory
drugs could reduce the risk of mouth cancer, it caused considerable excitement
among cancer researchers. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine described the study as impressive, claiming it might lead to earlier identification of
pre-cancerous cells. [IPBiz note: a note the Harvard Law Review used the 97% number of Quillen/Webster in 2003, a year after it had been modified.]

Conducted by Dr Jon Sudbo, a previously-published researcher and
cancer expert from the well-respected Radium Hospital in Oslo, Norway, the
study was published in The Lancet, one of the world's most respected medical
journals.

The Daily Australian made it quite clear that the fraud was NOT discovered by the journal or by other researchers:

To make matters worse, the fraud was not discovered by The Lancet or
his colleagues, but by Camilla Stoltenberg, a director of epidemiology at
the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo.

Sudbo said the study was based on information collated from a public
health database. Stoltenberg, responsible for the database, knew it did not
contain the sort of information Sudbo cited.

Confronted, Sudbo admitted he falsified the data. He also admitted
that other studies on oral cancer, in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004
and The Journal of Clinical Oncology in March last year, were also fake.

The Daily Australian suggested that sometimes scientific peers recognize research is questionable but don't disclose their concerns:

Black believes fraudulent research may also go unnoticed because
peer reviewers and colleagues are reluctant to "dob in" [Asutralian slang] fellow
researchers. "People don't necessarily speak up about it. There is research that
people know is fabricated, and they haven't dobbed the person in because everyone
knows what happens to whistleblowers." However, Black says reviewers have no
choice but to assume researchers' work is legitimate. "The onus is on the researcher
to be honest and not falsify research."

The Daily Australian alluded to a soon-to-be released study:

The team hasn't released its final report, but initial findings
indicate authors frequently fail to disclose funding sources and potential
conflicts of interest in submitted manuscripts, until asked to do so by journal
editors. [IPBiz note: surprise, surprise, gambling in Casablanca. Sometimes the journal editors don't even ask, as in Hwang's 2005 paper in Science.]

Patent issues are present:

FEBRUARY 05: Nutrition retracts a 2001 study by University of
Newfoundland researcher Ranjit Chandra which found that vitamin supplements improved
cognition in the elderly. It was revealed Chandra held a patent on a
multivitamin sold in the US.