What Would We Do Without “Gold Standard” Researchers?

How a tiny circle of repeat offenders poisoned 100s of gold-standard medical trials for over a decadeand didn’t go to jail.

In a recent study, researchers set out to investigate how many retracted randomized clinical trials were linked to superretractors (authors with the most retractions) and to highly cited authors with multiple retractions.

They found that just 6 superretractors were co-authors on 22% of all retracted clinical trials studied, 5 were based in Japan, and 1 was from Germany. Also, a group of 18 top-cited scientists were involved in 25% of all retracted trials. The retractions were highly concentrated in specific areas like anesthesiology, endocrinology and metabolism.[…]

To become a superretractor, first, a researcher must produce large volumes of unreliable, duplicate, or fabricated work, often fueled by the publish or perish system of academia that rewards output over rigor and lacks strong oversight. Second, that misconduct has to be uncovered through investigation and exposure.

Superretractors can also act as superspreaders of contaminated research. When flawed or fabricated trials enter systematic reviews and meta-analyses, they are amplified and woven into widely used evidence summaries. By the time a study is retracted, it has often already shaped these studies referenced for developing clinical guidelines that doctors rely on. The result is a cascade of distorted evidence that can translate into incorrect, even harmful, decisions in patient care.

7 Replies to “What Would We Do Without “Gold Standard” Researchers?”

  1. Follow the science.
    14 years to retract some flawed research. That’s amazingly ineffective but then, people are still quoting Michael Brown as having said, “Hands up, don’t shoot”.

    1. Liars with snazzy public relations people! It’s like calling me “superodorizer” because I fart so much.

  2. How much professional stature did they gain by being reviewers? If they gain from lying then there are incentives to lie. A better incentive system is needed.

  3. Can we mandate MAID for ‘researchers’, Liberal and NDP supporters, etc? And reduce government by 50% consecutively for 2 ys….. All levels!

  4. KM hardest hit.

    (just can’t be true…they were all PEER REVIEWED, right??)

    Seriously, though…no consequences at all? Wow.

Navigation