Comments on: [2b2k] Scientific transparency vs. trust

By: Science in the Open » Blog Archive » The truth…well most of the truth anyway

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:00:35 +0000

[...] [2b2k] Scientific transparency vs. trust (hyperorg.com) [...]

By: Jean-Claude Bradley

Jean-Claude Bradley — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:21:01 +0000

Actually we don’t know if the 5 g/l was right because they didn’t reference that number. From the analysis of the other peer reviewed articles in that post I think it is clear that we really don’t know what the solubility of EGCG in water is. We only know that there are major contradictions in the literature.

By: pinboard August 29, 2010 — arghh.net

pinboard August 29, 2010 — arghh.net — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:11:00 +0000

[...] Joho the Blog Â» [2b2k] Scientific transparency vs. trust [...]

By: Andy Weinberger (Yes, I am related)

Andy Weinberger (Yes, I am related) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:44:58 +0000

I just saw a major article at a professional organization website with a chart abstracted from the article. The chart of criteria had a mistake obvious to anyone in the field who reads as slowly as I do (slow reading is not something I brag about). When I read the full article, the same mistake was in a table in the body of the article. The data in the article supported the fact that the table was incorrect.

The article had, literally, about 35 authors and when published online must have been reviewed by at least two reviewers and likely an editor. I wrote the editor who replied that it seemed like a mistake. The abstracted table was corrected in a day or two, but it took much longer for the article itself to be corrected. In the meantime, who knows how many people read and/or downloaded the incorrect article and the abstracted table. The error is not likely to appear in the print version.