Science has done an excellent job of sensitizing us to issues of fabricated data. Nevertheless, there is a related issue that also deserves discussion: sham publication in the secondary literature. It is important because scientists rely on the authors of reviews to gather and analyze the unwieldy
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas J. Katz (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: