Impact factor mania and publish-or-perish may have contributed to Dana-Farber retractions, experts say

Learning from past errors (and misconduct) in cancer research

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

More than a decade ago, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis published a paper with astounding findings: of 53 “landmark” studies, only six, or 11%, were reproducible, even with the same reagents and the same protocols—and even, sometimes, in the same laboratory—as the original study.

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe
Jacquelyn Cobb
Associate Editor
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Just consider for a minute if this was the first year of running your lab, if you were on the job market as a physician or scientist right now, if you were a resident contemplating a career in cancer research after fellowship, if you were a graduate student or postdoc, if you were an undergraduate or a technician who was looking toward graduate school.
Jacquelyn Cobb
Associate Editor

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login