Retraction [Off Topic]
❝ 1. Isn't it a funny term "Integrity of its authorship". Is that the same as integrity of the study or the data? To me it sounds like doubt over who wrote the paper (or didn't) etc.
Ghostwriters? Yipie i-oh! Yipie i-ay!
❝ 2. How can a paper first be published and then, afterwards, someone requires access to raw data and ethics approval?
❝ And who is someone? The ordinary reader can't ask about such things after publication (or she/he can, but to the best of my knowledge the journal does not make a requirement for publication that the authors provide raw data or other insights to readers upon request).
Under the heading DATA AVAILABILITY of the article we find:
The raw data are available on request from the corresponding author.
- Someone (i.e., an interested ordinary ophthalmologist) requested the data → 没有什么.
- Asked the Editor-in-Chief for help.
- Robert O. Williams III tried as well, received the finger.
❝ Strange one.
The collected tear fluid samples (in Eppendorf tubes) were treated with 2 ml methanol to precipitate out the proteins. The tubes were centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 3 h and the drug content in the collected supernatant was analyzed using HPLC.Really‽
As an aside, this …
Fig. 1. TEM images of microemulsion and silica shell coated nanoparticles
… brought back memories of another excellent article.1
A Drastic Cost Saving Approach to using your Neighbour’s Electron Microscope *
The fine picture (right) may constitute a breakthrough in scientific research. We have used the amazing circumstance that all photographs made with an electronic microscope look exactly identical.
With the prices of these scopes skyrocketing, enormous savings can be made simply by borrowing a photograph and using it in any kind of research in any field. Grants and designated funds earmarked for an electron-scope can be diverted to the acquisition of licorice and other essentials.
We at the museum have now been using the same picture for five years. It has resulted in two substantial increases in the operating budget, one unnecessary appendectomy, three unscheduled salary raises and a sizable grant for investigating possible differences in taste between fried bay shrimp and gulf shrimp.
* Another contribution by the staff of the Corpus Christi Museum in Texas.
- Scherr GH, editor. The Best of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Part V. How Research is Done. p. 107–8. New York: Workman Publishing; 1983. ISBN 978-0894805950. Reproduced with kind non-permission.
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮