Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The three steps of a typical forensic statistical analysis are (1) verify that the raw data file is correct; (2) verify that the statistical analysis file derived from the raw data file is correct; and (3) verify that the statistical analyses are appropriate. We illustrate applying these three steps to a manuscript which was subsequently retracted, focusing on step 1. In the absence of an external source for comparison, criteria for assessing the raw data file were internal consistency and plausibility. A forensic statistical analysis isn't like a murder mystery, and it many circumstances discovery of a mechanism for falsification or fabrication might not be realistic.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2329265 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!