Letters

Handling scientific fraud

BMJ 1995; 311 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.261b (Published 22 July 1995) Cite this as: BMJ 1995;311:261
  1. R P Husemeyer
  1. Former editor, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Grantham and District Hospital NHS Trust, Grantham NG31 8DG

    Pearce's editors were not to blame

    EDITOR,--In his editorial on the Pearce affair Stephen Lock states that the review of the clinical trial was clearly inadequate.1 He is amazed at the credulity that the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology showed in publishing the trial, on the basis of his observation that over three years Pearce purported to have collected 191 women with a syndrome so uncommon that a major referral centre (unnamed) saw only one or two new …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe