How can something like this be published? - (Aug/28/2008 )
Progressive metplastic and dysplastic changes in mouse pancreas induced by cyclooxygenase 2 overexpressions.
lacking expression data, strange magnifications, no backup to hypothesis??
Opinion?? 
lacking expression data, strange magnifications, no backup to hypothesis??
Opinion??
lacking expression data, strange magnifications, no backup to hypothesis??
Opinion??
Link
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=2481568
sowwwy
maybe you referred to another paper or you are used to publish only nature or science papers. I am not in this field, but I see no gross error as a scientific publication.
Uhm...really?
I dunno, the first thing that bothered me was that they used 20x magnification for the wildtype mice and 40x or 100x for the transgenes.Then I was annoyed by the fact that they dont seem to haven taken pictures of similar regions in the organ so that its more comparable. Then they mention a lot of molecules involved but dont show expression levels to back it up. They start out claiming metaplasia and dysplasis but dont explain it in their model in the discussion. Also some of the markers they use for their stainings arent specific for what they claim.
Uhm what else........they tried to show that the cell lines derived were metastatic or aggressive by injecting them into the spleen? Not a typical model for metastasis really, why not intravenous, why not into the bladder and then check for metastasis in the liver. All they seem to show is that the cells are able to grow near the site of injection.
I also didnt get the CFP experiment, I think a fusion protein would have been more demonstrative of what they state.
Am I crazy? lol
a "letter to the editor" is the normal way to handle this issue and you can hear what authors have to say.
lacking expression data, strange magnifications, no backup to hypothesis??
Opinion??
oh...I can give you a list of publications that all have wrong data. They are all based on fake results.
the question is "are these people traitors to humanity" ?
[
No they are not, they are as human as can be 
Its just kinda sad
well, they are, but you don't have to forget that every journal has referees who have to judge the papers.
So who are the worst people: the authors who try to publish fake data, or the referees who allow fake data to be published?
Hey! Why don't we put a poll on this topic?