Spotted: Phony reviews; tracking trials

It’s unclear who made up the reviews or why. A media statement from Springer cites “fake email addresses,” suggesting that perhaps the people who were supposed to review the studies never saw them. Sadly, this isn’t the first time a bungled peer review process has sparked a retraction. Last year, BioMed Central (which is owned by Springer Science+Business Media) retracted 43 papers over faked reviews.

Springer has not yet announced which journals or studies are involved, but the publisher is reviewing its editorial process to guard against future gaffes. “The peer-review process is one of the cornerstones of quality, integrity and reproducibility in research, and we take our responsibilities as its guardians seriously,” Springer said in a statement.

A sobering study published earlier this month in PLoS One suggests this strategy worked. Only 8 percent of trials conducted after 2000 had positive results, compared with 57 percent of trials conducted before that year. After all, it’s harder to get positive trial results when you have to meet your original lofty goals. (The researchers focused on big, pricey trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.)

The findings “may be disappointing to investigators, but they are not negative for science,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Transparent and impartial reporting of clinical trial results will ultimately identify the treatments most likely to maximize benefit and reduce harm.”

A webinar scheduled for next Wednesday aims to simplify the process. Judith Gross, assistant professor at the University of Kansas and lead researcher on a project called Family Employment Awareness Training, will discuss different types of opportunities and support services for adults on the spectrum in search of employment.