I agree, though, that the finding is pretty much useless.
Great article in The Atlantic btw - "Lies, damned lies, and medical science" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...
I agree, though, that the finding is pretty much useless.
Great article in The Atlantic btw - "Lies, damned lies, and medical science" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...
30% of retracted papers were from "Asian nations".
The UK, India, China, and Japan each had over 5% of the retracted papers.
33% of retracted US papers were fraudulent. So 67% of their retracted papers were erroneous.
25% of retracted ... is this Asian, or UK/India/China/Japan? papers were fraudulent. So 75% of their retracted papers were erroneous.
How does the percentage of US papers that were retracted, compare the the percentages for other countries (it has number of retracted papers, but not number of non-retracted)? This is necessary to compare the overall percentages of fraudulent/erroneous papers; what I see in the article could mean that US researchers are less likely to make mistakes and equally (or less, even) likely to commit fraud; it doesn't necesasrily mean that US researchers commit more fraud (or make less mistakes).
On another front though, what's the margin of error on the sample sizes used in the paper?