Science issues "expression of concern" over U Missouri paper
Apart from the "mind boggling stupid" issue, the journal Science has issued a warning on a different paper:
Editorial Expression of Concern. 314 Science 592 (27 Oct 06)
Of 311 Science 992, Donald Kennedy wrote: It has come to our attention, through communication with Robert Hall of the Provost's office at the University of Missouri Columbia... that there is an onoging investigation of this study thy the University of Missouri. We are therefore informing readers that the results reported therein may not be reliable.
An expression of concern is less than a retraction. Science formally retracted two papers of Hwang Woo Suk in the area of embryonic stem cell research.
Science OUGHT to issue a correction as to the July 28 article by Eli Kintisch, errors in which paper were discussed in 88 JPTOS 743.
**Also in the Oct 27 issue-->
314 Science 579
Richard Clapp's study was published in Environmental Health.
IBM's laywer's argued for almost two years that the study could be used only for litigation, but a New York district judge ruled in February that Clapp was free to publish it.
Epidemiologist John Bailar at the NAS say that "from what I know at present, there is an excess cancer risk."
***
On 26 October 2006, The Scientist wrote:
IBM fought the study's author, Richard Clapp, in court over his right to publish the study, which was based on data the company released during the course of a lawsuit. In March, a New York judge ruled that the material was not confidential and that publishing it would be in the public interest.
(...)
"If IBM doesn't like this study, we should do more studies," said Lee Conrad, who worked at the Endicott plant for 26 years but has since retired. "Let's get to the bottom of this." [IPBiz note: remember the words of Judge Sand in the long ago citation case involving Gordon Breach and the American Physical Society (APS)?]
(...)
IBM lawyers sent Clapp a letter warning him not to publish, but he retained an attorney who told him he was within his legal rights. Then the journal rejected the paper. Elsevier, the journal's publisher, later said it refused the study because it only published reviews, not original work. However, the journal had published original studies in the past. Other contributors, including UCSF's Harrison, agreed to withhold their work in protest, at the request of the issue's guest editor, Joseph LaDou, of the University of California School of Medicine.
The idea that certain journals will do an el foldo in the presence of political pressure is not unknown. [UPDATE: look at ASRM's Fertility & Sterility in the Cha duplicate publication matter.]
***Science mentions the publication of the honey bee genome in the 26 Oct issue of Nature. 314 Science 578
Editorial Expression of Concern. 314 Science 592 (27 Oct 06)
Of 311 Science 992, Donald Kennedy wrote: It has come to our attention, through communication with Robert Hall of the Provost's office at the University of Missouri Columbia... that there is an onoging investigation of this study thy the University of Missouri. We are therefore informing readers that the results reported therein may not be reliable.
An expression of concern is less than a retraction. Science formally retracted two papers of Hwang Woo Suk in the area of embryonic stem cell research.
Science OUGHT to issue a correction as to the July 28 article by Eli Kintisch, errors in which paper were discussed in 88 JPTOS 743.
**Also in the Oct 27 issue-->
314 Science 579
Richard Clapp's study was published in Environmental Health.
IBM's laywer's argued for almost two years that the study could be used only for litigation, but a New York district judge ruled in February that Clapp was free to publish it.
Epidemiologist John Bailar at the NAS say that "from what I know at present, there is an excess cancer risk."
***
On 26 October 2006, The Scientist wrote:
IBM fought the study's author, Richard Clapp, in court over his right to publish the study, which was based on data the company released during the course of a lawsuit. In March, a New York judge ruled that the material was not confidential and that publishing it would be in the public interest.
(...)
"If IBM doesn't like this study, we should do more studies," said Lee Conrad, who worked at the Endicott plant for 26 years but has since retired. "Let's get to the bottom of this." [IPBiz note: remember the words of Judge Sand in the long ago citation case involving Gordon Breach and the American Physical Society (APS)?]
(...)
IBM lawyers sent Clapp a letter warning him not to publish, but he retained an attorney who told him he was within his legal rights. Then the journal rejected the paper. Elsevier, the journal's publisher, later said it refused the study because it only published reviews, not original work. However, the journal had published original studies in the past. Other contributors, including UCSF's Harrison, agreed to withhold their work in protest, at the request of the issue's guest editor, Joseph LaDou, of the University of California School of Medicine.
The idea that certain journals will do an el foldo in the presence of political pressure is not unknown. [UPDATE: look at ASRM's Fertility & Sterility in the Cha duplicate publication matter.]
***Science mentions the publication of the honey bee genome in the 26 Oct issue of Nature. 314 Science 578
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home