The REAPPRAISED checklist to identify flawed papers
From The Embassy of Good Science
Revision as of 15:47, 2 December 2021 by 0000-0002-6817-5697 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The REAPPRAISED checklist to identify flawed papers |Is About=The REAPPRAISED checklist can be used by anyone struggling to assess a sub...")
ResourcesCases
The REAPPRAISED checklist to identify flawed papers
What is this about?
The REAPPRAISED checklist can be used by anyone struggling to assess a submitted or published article, and includes common-sense assessments that go beyond the text itself. It can, and should, be applied independently of whether misconduct is suspected. Its use can help to speed up the identification and correction of flawed papers, preventing wasted resources and even protecting patients from harm. How did we come to see the need for this tool? From early 2013, three of us (A.A., A.G., M.J.B.) began to contact journals about multiple, serious problems we had identified in 33 reports of trials led by bone-health researchers Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto. The first retraction did not appear until late 2015. This delay is all the more regrettable given that concerns had been raised more than a decade earlier.
