Are other scientific genealogies reporting alternative facts?

Excerpt

Hirshman and colleagues performed a systematic review of publications by American authors that have reported on the survival effect of gross total surgical resection in patients with high-grade gliomas. They identified 108 scientific papers and now publish their fourth paper based on this review of the American glioma literature [11]. Internet searches were performed to determine the authors’ medical subspecialty as well as the timing and location of their medical school, residency, and fellowship training. Links were drawn between authors if one was a faculty member at an institution while another was a trainee in the same discipline. To be connected, mentor and trainee had to be located at the same institution during the same calendar year. From this genealogic approach, the authors identified different scientific herds and previously reported that articles by genealogy members tend to share similar conclusions and that articles by members of the same genealogy tend to publish their results in certain journals [9]. Thus, we scientists seem to stick to our herds and mentors when it comes to both study conclusions and publishing channels. They also reported that neurosurgical publications more often tend to support maximal resection than publications by radiation oncologists or medical oncologists [10]. In the present article, based on the same review of the same 108 American glioma papers, the authors (or nearly the same authors) now quantify the previously reported impact of genealogy on publication results in some greater detail [11]. However, the difference from their previous work is marginal. Their conclusion is (still) that the academic genealogy of scientific authors is predictive of their findings and this contributes to systematic bias in the published literature. Although Hirschman and colleagues are to be congratulated for their creative and important study approach, it still seems reasonable to point out the irony that the authors seem rather eager to salami publish their own study results while they criticize publication bias in the scientific literature. The authors even argue that “the consistency of the results between our previous and current study builds a strong case for the influence of genealogy on published literature.” Although validation of study findings is utterly important, salami-publishing from the same data material does not strengthen the evidence. …