Pubdate: Thu, 06 Jun 2002
Source: New Scientist (UK)
Page: 56
Copyright: New Scientist, RBI Limited 2002
Contact:  http://www.newscientist.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/294
Author: Matthew J. Baggott

DOUBLING UP

New Scientist is to be commended for its much-needed review of 
discrepancies in the politicised field of ecstasy research (20 April, p 
26). In addition to the issues mentioned, there is also a worrying tendency 
for some ecstasy researchers to base multiple publications on a single set 
of participants. Because these researchers typically fail to acknowledge 
this practice, it creates the false impression that separate papers are 
mutually confirmatory.

For example, in addition to their paper in The Lancet (vol 358, p 1864), L. 
Reneman and colleagues simultaneously published another paper in the 
Archives of General Psychiatry (vol 58, p 901) also describing the 
estimated cortical serotonin transporter density in almost entirely the 
same volunteers. Neither paper acknowledged the existence of the other.

This is no small matter. In future, authors will undoubtedly cite both 
papers as if they were independent evidence that ecstasy exposure reduces 
serotonin transporter density.

The pressure on academic researchers to divide work into "least publishable 
units" in order to appear productive is lamentable, but understandable. But 
I find the failure of these pressured researchers to properly cite these 
papers and their relationship harder to understand.

Matthew J. Baggott

San Francisco
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth