LAUSR

reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 944–52. 27. Loadsman JA, McCulloch TJ. Widening the search for suspect data – is the flood of retractions about to become a tsunami? Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 931–5. 28. Carlisle JB, Loadsman JA. Evidence for non-random sampling in randomised, controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 17–27. 29. Hutson S. Publication of fake journals raises ethical questions. Nature Medicine 2009; 15: 598. 30. Kahan S, Kushner RF. New year’s resolution: say no to fake journals and conferences. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2017; 25: 11–2. 31. Dyer O. Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. British Medical Journal 2015; 350: h1783. 32. Dumas-Mallet E, Smith A, Boraud T, Gonon F. Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers. Public Library of Science One 2017; 12: e0172650. 33. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: ‘‘all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’’? Vascular Health and Risk Management 2007; 3: 39–53. 34. Gupta A. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: a concern. Perspectives in Clinical Research 2013; 4: 144–7. 35. Carlisle JB, Dexter F, Pandit JJ, Shafer SL, Yentis SM. Calculating the probability of random sampling for continuous variables in submitted or published randomised controlled trials. Anaesthesia 2015; 70: 848–58. 36. Klein AA. What Anaesthesia is doing to combat scientific misconduct and investigate data fabrication and falsification. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 3–4.