{"id":17980,"date":"2021-01-26T07:20:26","date_gmt":"2021-01-26T07:20:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=17980"},"modified":"2021-01-26T07:21:35","modified_gmt":"2021-01-26T07:21:35","slug":"re-check-your-references-before-submission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2021\/01\/re-check-your-references-before-submission\/","title":{"rendered":"Re-Check your references before submission"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I think it is now mandatory to check all references if there any PubPeer notes or if the references even has been retracted.<\/p>\n<p>A recent <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/d41586-020-01695-w?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&amp;utm_campaign=35c879cd44-briefing-dy-20210125&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-35c879cd44-45855130\">Nature News<\/a> highlights the issue<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Most of the papers that cite discredited COVID research in <i>The Lancet<\/i> and <i>The New England Journal of Medicine <\/i>don\u2019t mention that the studies have been retracted. The infamous studies relied on health-record analyses from a company, Surgisphere, that declined to share its raw data for an audit. <i>Science<\/i> looked at 200 academic articles that cite the Surgisphere papers and found that 52.5% \u2014 including some in prominent journals \u2014 failed to mention the retractions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"bottom-note\">\n  <span class=\"mod1\">CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 28.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I think it is now mandatory to check all references if there any PubPeer notes or if the references even has been retracted. A recent Nature News highlights the issue Most of the papers that cite discredited COVID research in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine don\u2019t mention that the studies have &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2021\/01\/re-check-your-references-before-submission\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Re-Check your references before submission<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[1489,2549],"class_list":["post-17980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","tag-citation","tag-retraction"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17980"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17982,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17980\/revisions\/17982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}