Talk:Levon Khachigian

Verifiability

Hello! I am a UNSW employee editing this article to contain only verifiable information. If you have any concerns re: WP:COI, please contact me via my talk page. Tim Bennett (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

What is meant by " He is the inventor of the experimental drug DZ13, which can allegedly treat skin cancer without skin cancer without surgery, eye diseases, and asthma." Hpow does he claim to 'treat skin cancer without skin cancer"???? Does "without" apply to "eye diseases, and asthma" or just to "surgery"? Edison (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed? Please review now, thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 December 2019

Include following paragraph under "Investigation" section:

Six of Khachigian's research articles have so far been retracted and one corrected due to unresolved concerns over missing or manipulated data. At Pubpeer.com, an important discussion forum for published research, fifteen articles co-authored by Khachigian are discussed due to problematic issues. ABC News in Australia critically discussed the many problematic issues related to Khachigian's research in October 2019

All the information is fully documented. Pubpeer.com is a well known discussion forum for scientists, where scientist discuss published literature. Pubpeer perform a strict quality control of all posts published there. Moroks (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 5 December 2019

Change: Include under the head line “Investigations”, before the sentence “None of the multiple different…”:

Six of Khachigian's research articles have been retracted and one corrected due to unresolved concerns over missing or manipulated data.

Change: Include at the end of the same paragraph, after the sentence: “…there was no finding of research misconduct.[29]:

This conclusion has recently been challenged.

Reason for change: Important to include critical information from another point of view. I have removed links to Pubpeer, and added more reliable references (RetractionWatch). This edition overrides my previous edit request. Thanks. Moroks (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 10 December 2019

The proposed amendments in Moroks’ 5 December 2019 Edit Request (overriding the 4 December request) seem appropriate except:

Change: Under the headline “Investigations”:

Amend Moroks’ proposed sentence “Six research articles …”, to be inserted before “None of the multiple different …”, to “Six research articles co-authored by Khachigian have been retracted and one corrected.”

Reason for change:

(a) None of the publisher retraction notices for any of the 6 research articles refer to manipulated data; (b) Several of the publisher retraction notices give no reason for the withdrawals; (c) Although data manipulation was initially alleged, the independent external expert panels of inquiry investigating these articles found genuine error or honest oversight, not deliberate or intentional conduct. This amended sentence is factual and unbiased.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HansonPeabody (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 10 December 2019 (signed)

The proposed amendments in Moroks’ 5 December 2019 Edit Request (overriding the 4 December request) seem appropriate except:

Change: Under the headline “Investigations”:

Amend Moroks’ proposed sentence “Six research articles …”, to be inserted before “None of the multiple different …”, to “Six research articles co-authored by Khachigian have been retracted and one corrected.”

Reason for change:

(a) None of the publisher retraction notices for any of the 6 research articles refer to manipulated data; (b) Several of the publisher retraction notices give no reason for the withdrawals; (c) Although data manipulation was initially alleged, the independent external expert panels of inquiry investigating these articles found genuine error or honest oversight, not deliberate or intentional conduct. This amended sentence is factual and unbiased.

HansonPeabody (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC) HansonPeabody (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References