Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sham peer review or malicious peer review is a name given to the abuse of a medical peer review process to attack a doctor for personal or other non-medical reasons. [1] The American Medical Association conducted an investigation of medical peer review in 2007 and concluded that while it is easy to allege misconduct and 15% of surveyed physicians indicated that they were aware of peer review ...
There is no charge to submit a rebuttal, but they must have a registered account. Alternatively, to "repair the reputation" [1] because of something that is written in the website, Ripoff Report asks them to pay for investigations of complaints and responses [5] carried out by "Ripoff Report's pool of Arbitrators", [6] and to edit the webpage. [7]
Foundation Medicine was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts. [3] The company was conceived after Broad Institute researchers Levi Garraway and Matthew Meyerson published a 2007 paper detailing a method for large-panel testing of 238 DNA mutations. [4] Foundation Medicine launched in 2010 with a $25 million Series A financing led by Third Rock ...
The Washington Post submitted a complaint against Coler's registration of the site with GoDaddy under the UDRP, and in 2015, an arbitral panel ruled that Coler's registration of the domain name was a form of bad-faith cybersquatting (specifically, typosquatting), "through a website that competes with Complainant through the use of fake news ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
486 Chinese cancer researchers were found guilty of engaging in a fraudulent peer-review scheme by China's Ministry of Science and Technology. The investigation was initiated after the retraction of 107 papers published in Tumor Biology between 2012 and 2016. [334] [335] This is reported to be the most papers retracted from one journal. [336]
Scams by "paid editing companies" have been happening on Wikipedia since at least the 2015 Operation Orangemoody scandal, which was documented by the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as by the Guardian, Independent, and Signpost. The Orangemoody scam worked like an extortion racket.
The FTC filed a complaint that the Texas-based company Applied Food Sciences (the promoters of the study) had falsely advertised. The FTC alleged that the study was "so hopelessly flawed that no reliable conclusions could be drawn from it" so Applied Food Sciences agreed to pay a $3.5 million settlement.