{"id":7117,"date":"2010-11-19T03:00:29","date_gmt":"2010-11-19T08:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/?p=7117"},"modified":"2010-11-19T03:00:29","modified_gmt":"2010-11-19T08:00:29","slug":"read-this-even-though-my-data-are-faked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/archives\/7117","title":{"rendered":"Read This, Even Though My Data are Faked"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Did you know that 73.4% of statistics are made up?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve run across several posts all referencing a recent journal article, <a href=\"http:\/\/jme.bmj.com\/content\/early\/2010\/10\/18\/jme.2010.038125\">Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?<\/a>, which parrot (and possibly distort) the information in the abstract \u2014 that US researchers are the worst purveyors of fraud, such as this article:  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sciencedaily.com\/releases\/2010\/11\/101115210944.htm\">US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds<\/a><\/p>\n<p>I wanted to check on that, because it&#8217;s not an unknown phenomenon for a article to incorrectly summarize research and so I looked at the article, linked above, to see the abstract<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>All 788 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Well, that&#8217;s a bit of bias, since people in the US are more likely to publish in English-language journals, but that&#8217;s not necessarily true for countries where English is not the native language. It also assumes all fraud is caught and results in a retraction.  But beyond that I wanted numbers to look at, since I know there are a lot of articles published in the US, and if they are simply saying that there are more fraudulent articles published in the US, it is pretty meaningless.  While I don&#8217;t have access to the journal, it turns out that an analysis has already been done.  <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/news\/thegreatbeyond\/2010\/11\/us_scientists_more_prone_to_fa_1.html\">US scientists \u201cmore prone\u201d to fake research? No.<\/a>, with some followup in <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/boboh\/2010\/11\/17\/rates-of-scientific-fraud\"><em>Rates<\/em> of Scientific Fraud Retractions<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The likelihood of a given paper being retracted as fraudulent is higher for China and India than for the US, and significantly so.  The finding that the fraud rate is higher is higher-impact journals may be due to having more scrutiny and that we&#8217;re simply missing fraud in journals that are not widely read.<\/p>\n<p>I think it&#8217;s also important to note (as the paper&#8217;s author does) that the overall rate of fraud is low.  Using these criteria, it is less than 200 cases out of more than six million papers, or 0.0032%.  In other words, for every 31,000 journal articles you read (from all sources), on average <em>one<\/em> of them will be fraudulent.  If you limit yourself to US authors, the number drops to one in <em>only<\/em> 21,600.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Did you know that 73.4% of statistics are made up? I&#8217;ve run across several posts all referencing a recent journal article, Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?, which parrot (and possibly distort) the information in &hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/archives\/7117\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journalism","category-science-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}