Open letter from a group of sleuths regarding problems with editors/papers at the journal Scientific Reports. https://twitter.com/user/status/1846469354029814027 Dear Mr Graf, We are a group of sleuths and forensic meta-scientists who are concerned that Springer Nature is failing in its duty to protect the scientific literature from fraudulent and low quality work.... Full letter here: https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/10/an-open-letter-regarding-scientific.html
Academic publishing is fundamentally broken. I hadn't heard the term "tortured phrases" before; this is exactly what I found in a CFS paper a couple of months ago, evidently the use of some kind of automated paraphrasing tool.
Could be. I found that she was co-author of this paper that compared CFS activists to climate change deniers: https://www.nature.com/articles/529459a.pdf
She made a comment to the SMC about Crawley's LP study: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-controversial-treatment-for-cfsme/
Yes, it was that Nature article I remember. I had an email exchange with her. She has personal experience of the illness (ie member of family, though not sure how close) and I got the impression this experience was the same as that of Fiona Fox's ie they thought the family member had a mental health problem.
Maybe having done that for long enough the magnitude of what you’d have to realise you’d done makes for such huge cognitive dissonance that person absolutely must be kept labelled because you aren’t prepared to go through the (nowhere near as much effort or pain as that relative will experience from each day or LC their attitudes being like that) come to Jesus , say sorry, acknowledge and re-set history and who you all are based in the truth. sad isn’t it we have so much papers based on something like this drive
To point out problems in academia while praising a body of work literally built out of the worst offenses for those problems is basically like the root cause of the problem looking at its consequences. Follows the usual "this research is bad" = I don't like it. Richard Horton said that in his opinion about half of all research isn't worthy of being publishes. Somehow doesn't apply to research he published. Funny how this works.
Yes, the SMILE trial. Dave Tuller wrote this some time ago, David Tuller: Trial by Error: My exchange with Professor Bishop
Yes and I pointed out the errors and she nonetheless continued to defend her statement by misrepresenting the results. I lost any respect for her at that point.
And let's not forget the study earlier this year that made causal claimes from a cross-sectional study. How does this shit pass peer review, or even get sent out for peer review with such obvious flaws? I was challenged when I posted this that Scientific Reports isn't considered a "prestige" journal. Unfortunately, I think anything published by Nature carries Nature's prestige quotient, even if the journal in question is a piece of crap. https://virology.ws/2024/04/04/tria...bogus-claims-published-by-a-prestige-journal/
