Post <blockquote><blockquote>It would not be a scandal if they were citing it and explaining the identification strategy was not novel. The very fact that they do not shows that there is something fishy. (and if you know the database they use you know there is NO WAY they were not aware of the previous paper) <blockquote>Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros. It's imminently plausible to me that the authors missed a paper in the health literature. The ID strategy is kind of obvious if you think about the admin data they have. They should have cited it, but two papers using a similar identification strategy with completely different outcomes is still not a scandal. </blockquote></blockquote> Nah, I use similar data in a different country. Couldn't tell you 5 percent of what's been done with it, even in my field. EJMR, you've found an oversight of citation. Congratulations. But you have not uncovered a scandal.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.