The fit seems to be driven by the high number of points in the area of the graph where many points overlap. The points that catch your eye and establish the visible balance probably do not contribute much.
Maybe this one should have been plotted as log in the abscissa for appearances. James On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:52 AM, DUMAS Philippe (UDS) wrote: > > Le Jeudi 18 Octobre 2012 19:16 CEST, "Bernhard Rupp (Hofkristallrat a.D.)" > <hofkristall...@gmail.com> a écrit: > > I had a look to this PNAS paper by Fang et al. > I am a bit surprised by their interpretation of their Fig. 3: they claim that > here exists a highly signficant correlation between Impact factor and number > of retractations. Personnaly, I would have concluded to a complete lack of > correlation... > Should I retract this judgment? > Philippe Dumas > >> Dear CCP4 followers, >> >> Maybe you are already aware of this interesting study in PNAS regarding the >> prevalence of fraud vs. 'real' error in paper retractions: >> >> Fang FC, Steen RG and Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the >> majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A >> 109(42): 17028-33. >> >> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract >> >> There were also a few comments on related stuff such as fake peer review in >> the Chronicle of Higher Education. As not all may >> have access to that journal, I have put the 3 relevant pdf links on my web >> >> http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_Misconduct_PNAS_Stuft_Oct_2012.pdf >> http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_DYI_reviews_Sept_30_2012.pdf >> http://www.ruppweb.org/CHE_The-Great-Pretender_Oct_8_2012.pdf >> >> >> Best regards, BR >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> Bernhard Rupp >> 001 (925) 209-7429 >> +43 (676) 571-0536 >> b...@ruppweb.org >> hofkristall...@gmail.com >> http://www.ruppweb.org/ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
