As soon as once again the European Heart Journal has “unpublished” an write-up without having any discover of retraction or explanation. Strangely, the article– Russian science via the prism of intelligence: is fraud even now achievable?– can still be viewed (at least for now) with a vestigial URL , but it can not be found via the typical channels on the journal internet site. The pages for the story on PubMed and the EHJ site now state: “This report has been temporarily removed.”
The article was very first posted on October 13, 2013. The writer is Alexander Kharlamov, a researcher who formerly worked in Russia and who now resides in the Netherlands. In December 2013 Kharlamov noticed that the report was no longer on the EHJ site. In response to a query he received the following response from the journal’s editor, Thomas Lüscher:
Dear collegue,
As this viewpoint raised a storm inside the Russian Society of Cardiology and the ESC, the ESC and its management Committee decided to give the President of the RSC to create a viewpoint ob behalf of the RSC. Until we recieve this piece, we are hiding your post. Once recieved the two viewpoinrs will be avialable on-line.
Very best regards
Thomas F. Lüscher, MD, FRCR
To date the EHJ has not published a response from the RSC (Russian Society of Cardiology) or republished the Kharlamov write-up.
Initially, this incident seems to reek of politics. Certainly, 6 months later on, in a subsequent letter to Kharmalov about the continued absence of the paper, Lüscher wrote:
I hope you recognize that the EHJ does not want to be involved in politics. We are a scientific journal and are pleased to discuss problems close to it, but we will never interfere beyond. I hope you can comply with this strategy of us.
A Difficult Story
But a much more cautious examination of the unique post leads to the suspicion that this story is a bit more complicated and raises questions each about the internal peer review method at the EHJ and about the original paper. Quite just, the Kharmalov paper is a mess, in critical need to have of editing and peer overview, if not significant surgical procedure. Some of its points seem to be really worth consideration: cardiovascular wellness in Russia is a nationwide disgrace, funding for investigation is overshadowed by funding for the intelligence services, and cardiovascular research has misplaced prestige in the submit-Soviet era.
But other statements are very problematic. What, for instance, does this statement indicate?
Russian science faces the issue of fraud in one more dimension, a dimension of the counteraction to the national governmental authorities, and specifically the Federal Safety Service (FSB formerly the KGB).
The following passage is particularly dense, and prospects to the inevitable suspicion that Kharlamaov is at least partly motivated because his very own investigation into “theranostics of atherosclerosis employing uniform multifunctional noble metal nano particles,” what ever that could suggest, has not been properly acquired.
The Russian government is significantly far more concerned with concerns of nationwide security, and not with the wants of the population or with biomedicine.
Every single single discovery, for instance in biomedical industries or nanotechnologies, right away gets a national treasure. The ideal illustration of such restrictions is presented by the classified outcomes of NANOM studies4,5 in Yekaterinburg (Russia). The group at the Ural Institute of Cardiology has identified a new method for theranostics of atherosclerosis using uniform multifunctional noble metal nanoparticles. Near-infrared optics and plasmonic photothermal treatment are capable to replace traditional strategies of imaging and management of atherosclerosis, such as percutaneous interventions and coronary artery bypass surgical procedure. Scientists in Yekaterinburg can’t exchange the raw data with other colleagues abroad simply because of limitations issued by the Russian federal authorities.
Right after studying this kind of a passage the inevitable query to request the journal is: did any person really read this paper prior to publishing? Was it peer reviewed?
It shouldn’t need to be stated but the time for peer review is ahead of publication, not after. The EHJ would have been properly justified in rejecting the post or demanding main revisions. But by publishing the post and then removing it with out explanation or a retraction the journal doubles its culpability, since it now seems to have a seriously flawed editorial process and it appears to have yielded to political pressure.
As I described at the prime of this publish, the EHJ has removed articles or blog posts before without observe or explanation. The earlier incident is very distinct however. You can go through my coverage of that incident here and here.
The Complex Story Behind Yet Another Disappeared Write-up At A Best Heart Journal
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder