 |
 |
I recently came across this blog entry (brought to my attention by an editor of PeerJ) about plagiarism ghost authorship, and text laundering in meta analyses. Here's the blog entry: http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2014/10/a-flurry-of-copycats-on-pubmed The authors conclude, " ... The work described in the CISCOM meta-analyses looks real, the literature is cited properly and is relevant to the main message... but we cannot help feeling a certain ethical unrest. We do not want to blame or judge Chinese researchers. Promotion of Chinese medical doctors is based on publications in SCI journals, which they cannot write for lack of time and training. Besides, ghost authorship in many forms is commonplace everywhere in the scientific world. Yet, the existence of ghostwriting companies rises many questions about good scientific practice. Many of those questions are also addressed to the editors publishing these studies." Farm raised meta analyses? Seems gross undermining of the purpose of meta analyses, and evidence synthesis. Thoughts? /Arin Basu