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 Economist和FierceBiotech（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.
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.
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.
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.