>>> Posting number 11822, dated 10 Jan 2007 21:52:06 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:52:06 +0000 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: Aubrey Subject: Re: From ScienceDaily-re Research integrity In-Reply-To: <944e84080701101250x5b6fe2dex5100a408a293e72@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is the same sort of nonsense that is promulgated by the UK-ORI (and also I suppose in the calls for research funding to develop such standards). This is a complete red herring in my view. There are already enough standards - that is not the problem. Removing data from studies is wrong. What new standards do we need for that. Not publishing 3 studies that give bad results while publishing the 3 others that give different findings is wrong. What new standards do we need for that. Not allowing authors to see raw data is wrong. What new standards do we need for that. They are already built into existing standards and journal guidance. Making a statistical analysis plan, and then analyzing data in a different way (giving better results) is wrong. What new standards do we need for that. They are already built into existing standards and journal guidance. Telling a journal editor that you will pull advertising material if they don't do what you want is wrong. We need new standards for that? Aubrey Blumsohn RG> [. . .]