作者从F1000中撤回了备受争议的区块链论文。

The authors of a popular — and heavily debated —F1000研究paper proposing a method to prevent scientific misconduct have decided to retract it.

报纸是最初因涉嫌抄袭研究生博客而受到批评-和revised to try to "rectify the overlap." But according to F1000,it is now being retracted after anadditional expert identified problems with the methodology.

Today,F1000 added this editorial note到报纸上以下内容:

由于同行评审员在出版后开放同行评审过程中提出了方法上的担忧,the authors will retract this article from F1000Research.正式的收回通知将在适当bepaly体育赌博的时候公布。

报纸,他说:“这是一个很好的选择。”How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science," caught the media's attention after it first appeared in February 2016,接收通知inThe EconomistFierceBiotech(以及our site)在报纸上,physicianGreg Irving剑桥大学和John Holdenof Garswood Surgery in the UK how to use a blockchain—the technology that powers the digital currency bitcoin—to audit scientific studies,as well as prevent misconduct in clinical trials.

萨比娜阿拉姆,F1000编委,sent us this statement:

在文章的评论中,我们注意到了对本文方法和科学有效性的关注。In the interest of completeness of the peer review process and addressing these concerns we invited a fourth peer reviewer,威廉J。Knottenbelt,加密货币专家。Professor Knottenbelt submitted a peer review report stating that the methodology was not correct.在阅读本同行评审报告后,作者要求收回该文章。我们现在在报纸上写了一篇社论,通知读者它将被收回。A full bepaly体育赌博retraction notice will be posted on our site soon and we will work with PubMed to have all versions of the article indexed there retracted.As we have Crossmark implemented throughout our site,it should be clear that the paper is retracted,no matter what version people access.

另一位专家,威廉·诺顿贝尔特在伦敦帝国理工学院,告诉我们他同意作者的决定:

我认为他们明智的做法是收回它。

Knottenbelt,a computing expert,said he believes the authors misinterpreted one step of their methodology:

It was an understandable confusion,because this whole area is very complicated.

他补充说,他并不感到惊讶的是,这篇论文的最初审稿人错过了这个问题,也,given the type of varied expertise they would need to have to review a paper on this topic:

I think if people are going to work on this kind of stuff then they need to bring together the right combination of multidisciplinary expertise.

最初引发这篇论文辩论的不是方法论方面的担忧,而是本杰明·卡莱尔的指控,a doctoral candidate studying biomedical ethics at McGill,报纸上的抄袭了他2014年的博客帖子.即使在作者更新了原稿试图解决重叠问题之后,卡莱尔去年7月告诉我们,他仍然相信新版本是“我博客条目的镜像”。

卡莱尔的顾问,乔纳森·金梅尔曼,请told us today he suspected the plagiarism allegations may have ultimately prompted this bepaly体育赌博retraction:

I think the plagiarism allegations probably brought much more careful scrutiny to this article than would have otherwise occurred.

Kimmelman added that he thought the paper should have been retracted earlier for plagiarism alone,但很高兴它终于发生了:

This has been a long process,我很高兴看到这个结果。

Knottenbelt concluded that this bepaly体育赌博retraction was an example of how publishing should happen — authors release findings,如果外部专家发现错误,则收回:

This is how the scientific process is supposed to work…That's what peer review is for.

更新,下午4点Eastern,17年5月24日:丹尼尔·希梅尔斯坦,对F1000纸发表了评论,在评论中为我们连接一些点,请注意到Knottebelt的“评论与3个月前我的博客帖子得出的结论相同”,他正在谈论这个问题。博客文章,请which we在周末阅读中突出显示出版几天后。

Update 5/25/17 9:07 p.m.东方:我们从作家约翰·霍尔登那里听说过,谁告诉我们:

The paper was revised after consultation with others and following considerable efforts to provide a method that was entirely reliable.

当人们清楚地认识到这是不可能实现的时,就认定在科学上收回是正确的行动方针。bepaly体育赌博

像收放表?bepaly手机注册网址bepaly体育赌博考虑做一个支持我们增长的免税贡献.你也可以跟着我们on Twitter,请像我们一样on Facebook,请将我们添加到您的RSS reader,请注册我们的主页每次有新的帖子时都会收到一封电子邮件,or subscribe to ourdaily digest.Click在此回顾我们的意见政策.偷看一下我们正在做什么,click here.

8 thoughts on "Authors retract much-debated blockchain paper from F1000"

  1. Knottenbelt was a lot less circumspect in his actual review:
    “我也在努力了解论文内容所提供的见解,even if the methodology can be corrected.在我看来,整篇文章可以概括为两句话:“区块链可以为文档提供时间戳的存在证明(参见http://proofofexistence.com)。例如,您可以在区块链中对临床试验协议的存在进行编码,以确保其随后不会被篡改。因为这可以说是几年前发表的一篇参考文献的观点。(https://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/2014/08/25/proof-of-prespecified-endpoints-in-medical-research-with-the-bitcoin-blockback/,请顺便说一句,它包含了一种令人担忧的类似方法)。I do not see value in publishing the present work."

  2. 有点让人失望和讽刺的是,我在这里没有被认为是收回。bepaly体育赌博

    概括地说,on March 8,2017年,我发表了一篇详细的博客文章有头衔的最有趣的科学不可生产性案例?这篇博文描述了欧文和霍尔登的时间戳方法是如何被打破的。While the study had previously been criticized for plagiarism,I was first to discover that the implementation was irreparably botched.

    3月24日,2017年,F1000研究联系我并邀请我将我的批评作为研究笔记提交。我拒绝了,因为我觉得撤回是正当的。bepaly体育赌博在此期间,我和本杰明·卡莱尔联系过,抄袭的作者博客文章.与道德专家卡莱尔的讨论有助于说服我大力鼓励F1000研究收回文章。

    On March 30,2017年,欧文和霍尔登公布了他们研究的第3版。This version conceded the fundamental error I discovered,不承认其区块链时间戳因此不存在。同一天,我更新我的博客发布到版本3的帐户。

    The next day (March 31,2017年)F1000研究电邮如下:“为了回应你对本研究的有效性提出的观点,我们正在邀请更多具有区块链技术和密码技术专业知识的独立审查人员。”此外,他们在手稿中添加了以下社论:“由于对本文的方法和科学有效性的担忧,以及同行评审过程的完整性(请参阅本文的读者评论)。另一位具有区块链技术和密码技术专业知识的独立同行审核员正在寻求建议。”

    5月12日,2017年,F1000研究contacted me that they were having trouble finding reviewers with the appropriate blockchain expertise.I responded with several suggestions.我相信。KnottenBelt被要求独立于我的建议进行审查。5月22日,2017年,William Knottenband提供his review.

    三个月前,knotenbart的评论得出了与我博客帖子相同的结论。我的博客文章提供了更多的深度和背景。Furthermore,Knottenbelt's presents no additional criticisms beyond my blog.的确,他的许多观点和参考都是一样的。我不认为这是一个单独的问题。Knottenbelt was asked to review the article in light of my concerns.我们都在做正确的论据。然而,我真希望Knottenbelt的评论归功于我的博客帖子。我发现KnottenBelt完全不可能独立得出这些结论,尤其是我对这篇文章发表了两次评论。也许因为我的博文没有被记入贷方,bepaly体育赌博RetractionWatch未能将我的分析与导致这种收回的新发现联系起来。

    没有痛苦的感觉。只是想直截了当地指出博客文章的主题屡见不鲜,没有得到应有的学术认可。

  3. 我是原版博文的作者,这篇文章是根据原版博文收回的。I'm relieved that this is behind me,but I'm not sure that I can agree that any of this is how scientific publishing "should happen."

    I first alerted F1000 to methodological problems in this paper (along with the issue of the similarities to my blog) by email over a year ago,2016年5月19日。F1000 acknowledged publicly that they were aware of the validity issues in the case that they submitted in advance to the 2016 August COPE Forum,在他们的评论中,“学生和主管以及一些公开评论的其他人也质疑文章中证明概念证明的方式的科学有效性。”

    https://publicationalethics.org/case/what-extent-剽窃-demands-retracbepaly体育赌博tion-vs-correction

    I felt that the similarities between my blog and this paper were enough to warrant bepaly体育赌博retraction,and F1000 did not investigate the validity issues I indicated to them.他们在更正了我的帖子与欧文和霍尔登的论文之间的相似之处后,认为此案“已结案”。

    This case vindicates my earlier contention that plagiarism may merit bepaly体育赌博retraction,不仅仅是修正。如果作者没有想出一个主意,they may not properly execute it.And even if they can,they certainly should not be set up as an authority on that subject.A bepaly体育赌博retraction can protect the scientific literature,and not just serve as "punishment."

    I agree with Knottenbelt's assessment in his comment that there is very limited insight to Irving and Holden's paper.这个想法值得在博客上发表一篇短文。2014年。

    When the original blog was written,没有像现在这样自动化的比特币时间戳系统。Having such a low-level description of a now-standard cryptographic technique in the medical literature was strange.

    I am encouraged by the way that the scientific literature has corrected itself after such a disheartening episode.

    丹尼尔·希梅尔斯坦的作品尤其具有典范意义,应该引起公众的注意和赞扬。他主动独立审阅了这篇论文,在他的博客上发表了一篇非常彻底的评论:

    http://blog.dhimmel.com/irreproducible-timestamps/

    After Himmelstein's review was posted as a comment to the paper,F1000 solicited an "additional independent peer reviewer," namely Knottenbelt,whose review also does not pull any punches.

    The necessary analyses performed to investigate the errors are available at Himmelstein's Github repository,available at the following address:

    https://github.com/dhimmel/unrecroducible-timestamps

  4. 我只是想说,我认为没有人试图剥夺丹尼尔在这场辩论中的贡献,which are a matter of public record and are clearly visible under the comments section of the article on the F1000 site,很明显,这是本文所附评论叙述的一部分。我不认为有人会想念他们。的确,因为他提出的担忧,我是作为一名独立的评论员来发表我对这篇文章的看法的,这正是我所做的——我的评论是基于我自己试图重现论文中描述的方法论,based in turn on my 20+ years of experience as an academic computer scientist,我在帝国理工学院密码货币研究与工程中心担任主任两年的经验。为免生疑问,我不认为区块链相关的领域专长只存在于任何一个人身上,我绝对不想为这种收回而寻求信用;bepaly体育赌博我只是和其他人一起参与同行评审过程,including Daniel.

    1. 感谢威廉的评论。

      我应该注意到,我很感谢你的评论。Of the four invited reviews,你是唯一一个批判性地评价这项研究的人。Additionally,you succinctly describe the major flaws,即随机地址生成,the poor hashing practices,the reliance on trusted third parties,以及琐碎的事情。我也很感激你链接到“让我们谈谈比特币”第65集(2014年我是LTB的编辑)。

      开放式同行评审是最近发展起来的一项新兴实践,at least in the biomedical fields.欧文和霍尔登的研究强调了归因和公众评论的一些有趣的后果。

      First,评审员对他们的评审更负责。The insufficient nature of the initial three reviews is now readily apparent.有希望地,F1000研究will learn from this incident to strengthen their reviewer selection against "peer-review rings" and related weaknesses.

      第二个,reviews are becoming part of the permanent scientific record,尤其是自F1000研究而其他勤奋的期刊则将dois分配给评论bepaly投注。The question then becomes to what extent reviews are distinct scientific works that in addition to evaluating the underlying manuscript should also provide sufficient referencing to existing works.I think this is an open question,威廉的评论是一个压倒性的积极贡献,尽管我希望它已经明确地把自己放在我之前评论的上下文中。

      If we want post-publication peer review to achieve its full potential,then incentives of academic credit will be essential.In my case,Irving & Holden's study was not directly related to my research.但当我注意到它的不可复制性和背后的故事时,I decided to take the time to investigate and chronicle its flaws.值得注意的是欧文和霍顿updates in version 3,请这是由我之前的博客引起的,made the incorrect address generation more obvious.How to exactly quantify contributions in the fluid and scattered landscape of post-publication peer review is of course difficult.

      So in conclusion,我很高兴这项研究终于被撤回了。我很高兴威廉能够利用他的区块链专业知识最终实现收回。bepaly体育赌博And I'm glad that we're touching on the difficult issues of open review as well as post-publication peer review.尽管有这些困难,I'm extremely encouraged by the prospect of scientific evaluation and discourse becoming more open.考虑替代方案很重要。Had we followed the traditional practice of closed review and communications with bepaly投注journal editors,it's likely that the many individuals who worked hard to re-examine and expose this study would have received little to no recognition.

  5. I've just read Jordan's comment,and his Medium Post and it is spot on as well.So that too should be acknowledged as a contribution to the review narrative.

留下答复

Your email address will not be published.已标记必需字段*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.Learn how your comment data is processed.