“….Papers published by MDOI and Frontiers cite work for their journals at high rates, studies find…”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well NO SHIT DICK TRACY!

When everyone else is publishing nothing but BULL SCHIFF and have for years, what do you expect?

So much for “peer review” — Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers By Jo Nova

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results — Researchgate

From a DECADE AGO!

Here is ‘Peer-Reviewed” studies for them and comments from medical journal editors.
Former NEJM editors on the corruption of American medicine (NY Times)
2012 — Former NEJM editors on the corruption of American medicine (NY Times)

…There’s an important update on this in the New York Times today, an interview with Marcia Angell MD, an author we’ve quoted before, and her husband Dr. Arnold Relman – both long-time editors of one of the world’s top journals, the New England Journal of Medicine. It contains some eye-poppers.

Caveat: the Times makes clear that these two are controversial – some people think they’re “unrepentant scolds” who only see bad news, opposing all commercial interests in medicine (for-profit hospitals, insurance (which calls their payouts “medical loss ratio”), pharma). Whatever you think about them, it seems clear that there’s an important takeaway for all medical decision makers, patient and provider alike: have your eyes wide open about the weak science behind most journal articles.

This interview gives new reason to do so.

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

ABSTRACT

….A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12%< (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias…..

Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration:
Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Importance

Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature….

Objectives

To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature.

Design and Setting

Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found.

Results: Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems:

— falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%);

— problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%);

— protocol violations, 42 trials (74%);

— inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%);

— failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%);

— and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%).

Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. 👉No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

Conclusions and Relevance

 When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.