Malcolm Macleod, who helped develop these best practices, tells The Scientist how the new guidelines for manuscript publishing seek to support a push for transparent and thorough sharing of methods and data.
The issue’s guest editors resign after falling out with the publisher over the management of papers, including a rejected manuscript on ivermectin, that were submitted for a special issue on drug repurposing for COVID-19.
The microbiome-testing company made misleading claims about its prospects and about its business strategy, which allegedly relied on fooling doctors into ordering unnecessary tests, according to the US government.
Current reporting about the contribution of genetic variations to a person’s risk of disease is often incomplete and hard to interpret, according to the authors of a set of best practices for presenting such information.
The company behind a now-discredited study on hydroxychloroquine also posted a report that has been cited by Latin American governments recommending ivermectin as a possible coronavirus treatment. Clinicians there say the effects have been extremely damaging.
The company had helped develop a tool to aid decision-making in distributing limited medical equipment among coronavirus patients, but two high-profile retractions call into question the validity of Surgisphere’s work in toto.