The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The importance of being earnest in post-publication review: scientific fraud and the scourges of anonymity and excuses
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In biomedical research, the majority of incorrect results are estimated to derive from the incorrect use of material standards and experimental reagents.
“In the field of biomedical research, the majority of incorrect results are estimated to derive from the incorrect use of material standards and experimental reagents [2, 3].”
From Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical research publications: The Seek & Blastn tool (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
The paper’s discussion of publication misconduct and image duplication (pp. 695–696) does not estimate the causes of incorrect biomedical results. Searches for material standards, experimental reagents, and the claimed majority estimate found no passage addressing them. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Labbé, C., Grima, N., Gautier, T., Favier, B., & Byrne, J. A. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213266 · Cited by 55
“In the field of biomedical research, the majority of incorrect results are estimated to derive from the incorrect use of material standards and experimental reagents [2, 3].”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Stebbing, J., & Sanders, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stebbing, J
- Venue
- Oncogene
- Published
- 2017-10-16
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 695-696
- ISSN
- 0950-9232 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5594
- OpenAlex
- W2765444545
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Oncogene (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-RP-011-053)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- post-publication review, scientific fraud, research integrity, author anonymity, excuses, peer review, research misconduct
- MeSH terms
- Fraud, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Scientific Misconduct, Peer Review, Research, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
