pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12187 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.DL

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A clinical trial engineering firm

Matthias Wjst
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 03:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL
keywords clinical trial engineeringresearch integritybiosimilar drugsIranstatistical manipulationregulatory approvalINSPECT-SR framework
0
0 comments X

The pith

A cluster of 23 trials from CinnaGen and Orchid Pharmed shows 180 problems indicating that analyses were engineered to support regulatory approval.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews 23 randomised controlled trials and post-marketing studies linked to an Iranian biosimilar manufacturer. It applies the INSPECT-SR framework and finds repeated issues in reporting, arithmetic, study design, registration, and statistics. The pattern involves real patients but analyses structured to pass peer review while serving commercial goals. This leads the author to name the practice clinical trial engineering and to recommend that regulators treat the published results as unverified without access to the raw participant data.

Core claim

Application of the INSPECT-SR trustworthiness framework to the 23 trials identified 180 problems across nine categories, with the most common being reporting failures, arithmetic violations, design flaws, registration irregularities, and statistical errors. Co-authorship networks show that trial design, data management, and manuscript preparation were concentrated inside the sponsoring organisation. The paper argues that domestic publication incentives, commercial pressure from international sanctions, and regulatory requirements for local trial evidence together produced this pattern of genuine trials with manipulated analyses.

What carries the argument

The INSPECT-SR trustworthiness framework, which checks published trial reports against original study records for inconsistencies in design, registration, statistics, reporting, and authorship concentration.

If this is right

  • Regulatory bodies such as the EMA should treat the published evidence from this cluster as unverified until they obtain independent access to individual participant data.
  • The term clinical trial engineering should be used to distinguish this practice from classical paper mills that fabricate data outright.
  • Similar clusters may exist in other settings where domestic production incentives and regulatory reliance on local trials coincide.
  • Co-authorship concentration within a single sponsor organisation is a structural marker that warrants closer inspection in future reviews.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Sanctions that block imported drugs can create domestic pressures that affect the integrity of the supporting clinical evidence.
  • Other manufacturers operating under comparable economic and regulatory constraints may show overlapping patterns if examined with the same framework.
  • Wider adoption of mandatory raw-data sharing in regulatory submissions could reduce the scope for such engineered analyses.
  • The approach could be tested on trial sets from additional countries facing strong publication or import-substitution incentives.

Load-bearing premise

The 180 identified problems indicate deliberate statistical manipulation engineered for regulatory approval rather than honest reporting differences or unintentional errors.

What would settle it

Independent reanalysis of the original individual participant data from these 23 trials that confirms the published statistical results and conclusions would show the problems do not reflect manipulation.

read the original abstract

Paper mills produce fraudulent research manuscripts built on recycled tables and figures, or on entirely fabricated data. A more recent pattern has emerged: apparently genuine trials with real patients, but with manipulated statistical analyses engineered to support regulatory approval while remaining plausible to peer reviewers. This analysis applies the INSPECT-SR trustworthiness framework to 23 randomised controlled trials and post-marketing studies linked to CinnaGen Co., Iran's largest biosimilar manufacturer, and its clinical operations subsidiary Orchid Pharmed. Papers were retrieved from PubMed and assessed against the original study records. A total of 180 problems were identified across nine categories. The five most frequent issues were reporting failures (n=37), arithmetic violations (n=28), design flaws (n=26), registration irregularities (n=25), and statistical errors (n=25). Analysis of the co authorship network shows that trial design, data management, and manuscript preparation were concentrated within the sponsoring organisation. The underlying structural drivers appear to be a convergence of domestic publication incentives, commercial pressure from international sanctions that created demand for domestically produced drugs, and regulatory pathways that require this body of trial evidence. Because this pattern differs fundamentally from classical paper mills, we propose the term clinical trial engineering to describe it. Regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), should treat published clinical evidence from this cluster as unverified until independent access to individual participant data is granted

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the INSPECT-SR trustworthiness framework to 23 randomised controlled trials and post-marketing studies associated with CinnaGen Co. and Orchid Pharmed. It reports 180 problems across nine categories (most frequent: reporting failures n=37, arithmetic violations n=28, design flaws n=26, registration irregularities n=25, statistical errors n=25), documents concentrated co-authorship within the sponsoring organisation, and attributes the pattern to domestic publication incentives, sanctions-driven commercial pressure, and regulatory requirements for biosimilar approval. The authors introduce the term 'clinical trial engineering' to distinguish this from classical paper mills and recommend that regulators including the EMA treat the published evidence as unverified pending independent access to individual participant data.

Significance. If the methodological details and causal interpretation can be strengthened, the work would provide a concrete case study of a distinct pattern of research integrity issues in industry-sponsored biosimilar trials. The network analysis and category counts could inform targeted regulatory scrutiny and the development of domain-specific extensions to existing trustworthiness frameworks. The proposal of 'clinical trial engineering' as a new descriptor is potentially useful for distinguishing manipulated but patient-containing trials from outright fabrication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: The central claim that the 180 identified problems constitute 'clinical trial engineering' engineered for regulatory approval rests on the assertion that papers were 'assessed against the original study records,' yet no selection criteria for the 23 trials, per-trial breakdown of issues, verification protocol against raw data, or inter-rater reliability statistics are supplied. This leaves the counts vulnerable to selection bias and framework misapplication, directly undermining the inference to deliberate manipulation rather than reporting differences or honest errors.
  2. [Results] Results: The five most frequent problem categories are presented as aggregate counts without examples of how individual issues were scored, whether arithmetic violations were confirmed by re-analysis of participant-level data, or any comparison to a control set of non-CinnaGen biosimilar trials. Without this disambiguation, the evidence does not yet distinguish the proposed pattern from limitations in applying INSPECT-SR or from unintentional reporting inconsistencies.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: The regulatory recommendation that EMA and similar bodies treat the evidence cluster as unverified until IPD access is granted follows from the structural-driver analysis, but the manuscript provides no direct test (e.g., re-analysis of a subset of trials or comparison with trials from other manufacturers under similar sanctions) to support the causal attribution over alternative explanations such as resource constraints or differing local reporting standards.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The co-authorship network description would benefit from a supplementary table listing the 23 trials with their PubMed IDs, problem counts per category, and key network metrics to allow readers to trace specific contributions.
  2. [Methods] Clarify whether the INSPECT-SR framework was applied verbatim or adapted for biosimilar post-marketing studies, and cite the exact version or reference used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify opportunities to improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major point below and outline the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: The central claim that the 180 identified problems constitute 'clinical trial engineering' engineered for regulatory approval rests on the assertion that papers were 'assessed against the original study records,' yet no selection criteria for the 23 trials, per-trial breakdown of issues, verification protocol against raw data, or inter-rater reliability statistics are supplied. This leaves the counts vulnerable to selection bias and framework misapplication, directly undermining the inference to deliberate manipulation rather than reporting differences or honest errors.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires greater detail to support the claims. The 23 trials represent all PubMed-retrievable randomised controlled trials and post-marketing studies associated with CinnaGen Co. and Orchid Pharmed at the time of the study. In revision, we will add explicit selection criteria, a supplementary table providing per-trial issue counts, and a protocol describing how reported data were cross-checked against available study records. Inter-rater reliability was not formally quantified because the assessment was led by one author with framework expertise and reviewed by co-authors; we will state this limitation explicitly. These changes will allow readers to assess potential bias and the consistency of INSPECT-SR application. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The five most frequent problem categories are presented as aggregate counts without examples of how individual issues were scored, whether arithmetic violations were confirmed by re-analysis of participant-level data, or any comparison to a control set of non-CinnaGen biosimilar trials. Without this disambiguation, the evidence does not yet distinguish the proposed pattern from limitations in applying INSPECT-SR or from unintentional reporting inconsistencies.

    Authors: We will revise the Results section to include illustrative examples for each major category, showing how issues such as arithmetic violations were identified from published tables and, where feasible, verified by recalculation of summary statistics. Full participant-level data were unavailable for most trials, which itself underscores the need for IPD access. A matched control set of non-CinnaGen biosimilar trials lies outside the scope of this focused case study; we will note this as a limitation and indicate how such a comparison could be pursued in future work to further isolate the observed pattern. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: The regulatory recommendation that EMA and similar bodies treat the evidence cluster as unverified until IPD access is granted follows from the structural-driver analysis, but the manuscript provides no direct test (e.g., re-analysis of a subset of trials or comparison with trials from other manufacturers under similar sanctions) to support the causal attribution over alternative explanations such as resource constraints or differing local reporting standards.

    Authors: The causal framing is interpretive, grounded in the concentration of issues within this manufacturer cluster alongside known Iranian regulatory and economic pressures. We will expand the Discussion to address alternative explanations, including resource limitations and local reporting norms, and clarify why the specific combination of design, statistical, and registration problems is more consistent with systematic engineering than isolated errors. A direct test via re-analysis or cross-manufacturer comparison would require participant-level data and additional trial sets that are not accessible to us; the IPD recommendation is therefore offered as a precautionary regulatory step based on the documented volume of issues rather than as a proven causal demonstration. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct re-analysis of participant-level data subsets or systematic comparison against trials from other manufacturers under comparable sanctions, as these steps require raw data access unavailable to the authors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical literature analysis with no derivations, equations, or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper applies the external INSPECT-SR framework to count and categorize 180 problems across 23 trials, reports co-authorship network observations, and proposes a descriptive term. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles results are claimed. No equations exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The analysis is self-contained against the external framework and the retrieved study records; conclusions follow directly from the tabulated counts and network description without circular reduction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular empirical work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the INSPECT-SR framework for detecting manipulation and on the interpretation that co-authorship concentration plus problem counts demonstrate sponsor-driven engineering rather than random error.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The INSPECT-SR trustworthiness framework reliably identifies deliberate manipulation versus honest errors when applied to published trial reports.
    The paper invokes the framework to classify 180 problems without providing independent validation or sensitivity analysis for this dataset.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1258 out tokens · 95594 ms · 2026-05-13T03:27:42.551180+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020;594(4):583

    Anonymous Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century-how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett. 2020;594(4):583

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

    Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fernández E, Pérez-Ríos M. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2022;379:e071517

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Effects of the international economic sanctions on access to medicine of the Iranian people: A systematic review

    Asadi-Pooya AA, Nazari M, Damabi NM. Effects of the international economic sanctions on access to medicine of the Iranian people: A systematic review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2022;47:1945-1951

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    PCN297- impact of economic sanctions on access to noncommunicable diseases medicines in the Islamic Republic of Iran

    Kheirandish M, Varmaghani M, Kebriaeezadeh A, Cheraghali AM. PCN297- impact of economic sanctions on access to noncommunicable diseases medicines in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Value Health. 2018;21:S64

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT- TAHA8)

    Attar A, Mirhosseini SA, Mathur A, et al. Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT- TAHA8). BMJ 2025;391:e083382

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    BMJ rapid response (rr-3 on PREVENT-TAHA8)

    Wjst M. BMJ rapid response (rr-3 on PREVENT-TAHA8). Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj-2024-083382/rr-3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar recombinant human parathyroid hormone Cinnopar® in postmenopausal osteoporotic women: a randomized double-blind clinical trial

    Tabatabaei-Malazy O, Norani M, Heeshmat R, et al. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar recombinant human parathyroid hormone Cinnopar® in postmenopausal osteoporotic women: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Iran J Public Health. 2018;47:1336-1344

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Jamshidi A, Gharibdoost F , Vojdanian M, et al. A phase III, randomized, two-armed, double-blind, parallel, active controlled, and non-inferiority clinical trial to compare efficacy and safety of biosimilar adalimumab /1823 (CinnoRA®) to the reference product (Humira®) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:168

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Nodehi RS, Kalantari B, Raafat J et al. A randomized, double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of TA4415V (a proposed Trastuzumab biosimilar) and Herceptin (Trastuzumab reference product) in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer patients. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2022;23:57

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Eghbali A, Eshghi P , Toogeh G et al. A randomized, two-armed, double- blind, single-dose, cross-over, bioequivalence clinical trial to compare pharmacokinetic parameters and safety of recombinant human factor VIII with Fc fusion produced by AryoGen Pharmed Company versus Elocta (reference product) in previously treated patients with severe haemophilia A....

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Alavi Darazam I, Hatami F , Mahdi Rabiei M et al. An investigation into the beneficial effects of high-dose interferon beta 1-a, compared to low-dose interferon beta 1-a in severe COVID-19: The COVIFERON II randomized controlled trial. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021;99:107916

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Bevacizumab (Stivant®) versus Reference Product (Avastin®) in Prethreshold Type I Retinopathy of Prematurity

    Abrishami M, Golmohammadi Z, Shoeibi N et al. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Bevacizumab (Stivant®) versus Reference Product (Avastin®) in Prethreshold Type I Retinopathy of Prematurity. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2024;36:407-412

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Comparing a biosimilar follitropin alfa (Cinnal-f®) with Gonal-f® in women undergoing ovarian stimulation: An RCT

    Hossein Rashidi B, Sayyari K, Heshmat R et al. Comparing a biosimilar follitropin alfa (Cinnal-f®) with Gonal-f® in women undergoing ovarian stimulation: An RCT . Int J Reprod Biomed. 2021;19:1015-1024

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Allahyari A, Ehsanpour A, Najafi B et al. Comparing efficacy and safety of P013, a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar , with the reference product in HER2-positive breast cancer patients: a randomized, phase III, equivalency clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:960. /1923

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Effect of panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal bevacizumab injection on optic disc microcirculation in patients with diabetic retinopathy

    Khojasteh H, Ahadi Fard Moghadam M, Rahimi M et al. Effect of panretinal photocoagulation versus intravitreal bevacizumab injection on optic disc microcirculation in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2024;10:98

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Efficacy and safety of a biosimilar laronidase versus the reference laronidase in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I

    Rabbani A, Alaei M, Asl SN et al. Efficacy and safety of a biosimilar laronidase versus the reference laronidase in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I. Sci Rep. 2025;15:30427

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Esteghamati A, Zamanzadeh M, Malek M et al. Efficacy and safety of a biosimilar Liraglutide (Melitide®) versus the reference Liraglutide (Victoza®) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trial. Diabetes Ther. 2023;14:1889-1902

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Ghanei M, Ghalebaghi B, Sami R et al. Efficacy and safety of a proposed omalizumab biosimilar compared to the reference product in the management of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a multicenter , phase III, randomized, double-blind, equivalency clinical trial. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1425906

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Shaygannejad V , Ashtari F , Saeidi M et al. Efficacy and safety of peginterferon beta-1a compared to interferon beta-1a in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients: A phase 3, randomized, non- inferiority clinical trial (PEGINTEGRITY). Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2024;90:105839

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Jamshidi A, Vojdanian M, Soroush M et al. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar denosumab candidate (Arylia) compared to the reference product (Prolia®) in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a phase III, randomized, two-armed, double-blind, parallel, active-controlled, and noninferiority clinical trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:161. /2023

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Sahraian MA, Abolfazli R, Shaygannejad V et al. Evaluating efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab biosimilar (Xacrel) compared to the originator (Ocrevus) in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a phase III, randomized, equivalency, clinical trial. Sci Rep. 2024;14:24921

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Aflibercept Biosimilar (P041) Compared with Originator Product in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

    Karkhaneh R, Faghihi H, Riazi-Esfahani H et al. Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Aflibercept Biosimilar (P041) Compared with Originator Product in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmol Retina. 2024;8:744-753

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Tabarsi P , Anjidani N, Shahpari R et al. Evaluating the efficacy and safety of SpikoGen®, an Advax-CpG55.2-adjuvanted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein vaccine: a phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29:215-220

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Shafiekhani M, Jafarzadeh MA, Ahmadi M et al. Evaluation of clinical and safety outcomes of generic tacrolimus (Suprotac ®) versus branded tacrolimus (Prograf ®) in de novo liver transplant patients: a randomized clinical trial. Daru. 2025;33:35

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Evaluation of efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus (Suprotac®) compared to reference tacrolimus (Prograf®) in kidney transplantation: a phase IV study

    Einollahi B, Nafar M, Javanbakht M et al. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of generic tacrolimus (Suprotac®) compared to reference tacrolimus (Prograf®) in kidney transplantation: a phase IV study. Eur J Transl Myol. 2025;35:13203

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Shahri MS, Sadeghi S, Hazegh Fetratjoo D et al. Immunogenicity and safety evaluation of a newly manufactured recombinant Baculovirus- expressed quadrivalent influenza vaccine in adults 18 years old and above: an open-label, phase III extension study. Int Immunopharmacol. 2024;136:112214

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Afshani SM, Mirhassani R, Hosseini H et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a bivalent, adjuvant system 04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus vaccine in healthy female volunteers aged 15-25: a randomized, double- /2123 blind, phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2022;31:558-567

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Yadegarynia D, Keyvanfar A, Keyvani H, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine manufactured in Iran (FluGuard) in volunteers aged 18-60 years: A double-blind, non- inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Vaccine. 2024;42:2254-2259

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Safety and effectiveness of a biosimilar somatropin (Cinnatropin®) in children and adolescents receiving growth hormone therapy over 1 year: a registry- based phase IV study

    Rabbani A, Razzaghy-Azar M, Karamizadeh Z et al. Safety and effectiveness of a biosimilar somatropin (Cinnatropin®) in children and adolescents receiving growth hormone therapy over 1 year: a registry- based phase IV study. Eur J Pediatr. 2025;184:226

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Safety evaluation of the trastuzumab biosimilar in Iranian women with HER2-positive breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: a post-marketing surveillance

    Zahedi F , Jafari A, Nasiri Motlagh B et al. Safety evaluation of the trastuzumab biosimilar in Iranian women with HER2-positive breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: a post-marketing surveillance. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2024:1-6

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis

    Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr. 2017;11:959-975

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    D3: Data-Driven Documents

    Bostock M, Ogievetsky V , Heer J. D3: Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Trans Vis Comp Graph. 2011;17:2301-2309

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials

    Wilkinson J, Heal C, Flemyng E et al. INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials. medRxiv 2025. doi.org/ 10.1101/2025.09.03.25334905

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.09.03.25334905 2025

  34. [34]

    The Scientific Output of Iran: Quantity, Quality, and Corruption

    Sadeh S, Mesgaran MB, Feizpour A, Azadi P . The Scientific Output of Iran: Quantity, Quality, and Corruption. Working Paper 7, Stanford Iran 2040 Project, Stanford University; February 2019. 2019

    work page 2040

  35. [35]

    The unintended consequences of a quantitative, centralized faculty promotion system: empirical evidence from a developing country

    Sabagh Z, Moshtari M. The unintended consequences of a quantitative, centralized faculty promotion system: empirical evidence from a developing country. Higher Educ. 2025;90:1547-1569. /2223

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used

    Ortega JL. Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2022;73:655-670

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-IPD) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials when individual participant data are available

    Heal C, Bero L, Antoniou GA et al. Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-IPD) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials when individual participant data are available. medRxiv 2026. doi.org/ 10.64898/2026.02.06.26345217 /2323 Funding None. Ethics / Data availability Only public available data have been used where all sources are repor...

    work page doi:10.64898/2026.02.06.26345217 2026