A research anesthesiologist has been stripped of his professorship, fired from a German hospital, and is under criminal investigation for forging the medical research for more than 90 papers. Key paragraph:
German medical authorities are examining 92 of Boldt’s published papers amid allegations he forged documents, tested drugs on patients without their consent and fraudulently claimed payments for operations he never performed. Twenty-nine of the 92 papers have been identified as “highly suspected” of containing forged or distorted data, authorities said.
One third or more of his peer-reviewed papers are now suspect? Isn’t it the claim of peer-review science journals that this kind of fraud is impossible because the work will be carefully reviewed by the best people, most qualified to spot any fraud in their field? Yet, in this case this system failed at least one third of the time, if not more so, and did so frequently.
To me, this is further evidence that the best method for finding fraud is not review, but independent competition. Let others challenge the result or try to duplicate it. That way, we find out very quickly whether it is real or not.
