{"id":19868,"date":"2022-04-21T06:52:14","date_gmt":"2022-04-21T04:52:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=19868"},"modified":"2022-06-17T16:10:10","modified_gmt":"2022-06-17T14:10:10","slug":"the-lancet-and-scientific-integrity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2022\/04\/the-lancet-and-scientific-integrity\/","title":{"rendered":"The Lancet and scientific integrity"},"content":{"rendered":"

We have learned in the past that the Lancet published editorials<\/a> that clearly separated the journal from the publisher Elsevier<\/p>\n

Reed Elsevier’s response is that the sale of military equipment is legal, government supported, and tightly regulated. However,\u00a0The Lancet<\/em>‘s collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example, risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier’s promotion of the \u201cselling process\u201d of arms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course you can’t sell weapons and distance yourself from selling weapons at the same time…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Another split relationship can be found now with scientific integrity.\u00a0 Elsevier\/The Lancet knows that scientific integrity is a key survival strategy for the future of scientific publishing.<\/p>\n

So it does not come unexpected that Elsevier is now an “elephant sponsor” for a forthcoming conference of research integrity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
https:\/\/twitter.com\/WCRIFoundation\/status\/1516363479753633792<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/p>\n

At the same time the Lancet is not responding to various\u00a0 PubPeer entries<\/a> like one that I wrote some years ago. When talking to a senior editor at the REWARD conference in Berlin 2020<\/a> she said, the Lancet can’t do anything about\u00a0 these “old stories” as experts and documents will be no more available.<\/p>\n

Is there an expiry date of scientific integrity?<\/p>\n

Or do we need any further documents?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

And well , working on image integrity in scientific papers<\/a>, I came also across another example of Elsevier infiltrating the integrity community – the Headt Center<\/a> in Berlin – as highlighted also recently at Twitter<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
https:\/\/twitter.com\/brembs\/status\/1517417659612205057<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Headt has identified just one faked<\/a> image while PubPeer users found thousands in the same time. IMHO the Headt output by April 2022\u00a0 looks a bit weird…<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Screenshot 25\/4\/2022 https:\/\/headt.eu<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/p>\n

And here we are with the Macchiarini case. The Lancet<\/a> writes<\/p>\n

Last week, allegations of research misconduct against Paolo Macchiarini, a professor at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, were finally dismissed. The university issued its final ruling, concluding that there was \u201cnothing to support suspicions of scientific misconduct\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The university judges about their own case? Pubpeer comment<\/a> cites an independent court<\/p>\n

A Swedish court has finally, belatedly if insufficiently, convicted Macchiarini for causing bodily harm during an experimental stem-cell windpipe transplant. https:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-europe-61836856<\/a>
\nDo the Lancet\u2019s editors still think that causing bodily harm (in this case a euphemism for killing people) is not a form of scientific misconduct?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, I am a bit disappointed by The Lancet who printed 7 of my papers<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

 <\/p>\n

\n CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 22.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We have learned in the past that the Lancet published editorials that clearly separated the journal from the publisher Elsevier Reed Elsevier’s response is that the sale of military equipment is legal, government supported, and tightly regulated. However,\u00a0The Lancet‘s collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example, risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier’s promotion … Continue reading The Lancet and scientific integrity<\/span> →<\/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":[8,2],"tags":[83,166,727,1164,2060,218],"class_list":["post-19868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asthma-allergy","category-genetics-biology","tag-asthma","tag-elsevier","tag-gene","tag-integrity","tag-lancet","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19868","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=19868"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19868\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20083,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19868\/revisions\/20083"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}