ANTI-GLOBALIST EXPATRIATE writes:

From The Times of India:

A leading British medical journal has retracted 43 published articles after it was found that the authors had fabricated their peer reviews. As many as 41 articles were written by doctors who worked in Chinese hospitals.

The authors of the “fake” articles have allegedly used the services of agents involved in “selling pre-written manuscripts to fabricate contact details for peer reviewers,” according to UK’s Committee on Publication Ethnics [sic].

The committee said the behavior was inappropriate and a systematic attempt to manipulate the peer review process.

— Comments —

Paul writes:

As an ex-biologist/chemist, I know there are a lot of phony scientific publications. Publish or perish, which came into vogue when I was in college, is fair but tough; ergo false publications.  Here is a recent discussion of the problem.

As an attorney, I see this all the time, not so much in legal periodicals (which are too dull to fact check) but in briefs.  Many attorneys cite court decisions in support of a proposition that is not supported by the decision.  If it is a significant point, I make sure to read the opinion in full.  Often the cited opinion is dicta, that is, something a judge said that was not necessary to decide the case.  It is therefore irrelevant, although it might suggest a judge’s predisposition.  It has no precedential value, as false experiments have no value to scientific publications.  Who cares what the scientist thinks?  The issue is what has he proven.   Not unusually, the citation has no bearing on the issue; it simply fleets by the issue.  The key to any legal opinion is the holding, what the court actually did under the facts of the case.  It is an essential skill to learn but many have not learned it.  I learned it after I became an attorney.  It took a number of Saturdays at my former law school library.  Only by rigorously briefing a case can one determine the holding and the reasoning.  I know a book about how to do it in case anyone is interested.  I suppose I can give away my secrets since I suspect I will be retiring within a few years or tomorrow.

L.C. writes:

I have the same peeve. Honesty and diligence in brief-writing eat time but are not difficult and they become second nature. I have Judge Aldisert’s Winning on Appeal, 2nd Ed. If you have another opus I would be pleased to take it off your hands and I would pay for it. But the world needs good lawyers. Maybe you should hang onto it and stay busy. Unsolicited advice I know.

Please follow and like us: