I recently came across a posting on some website or other about a ‘new study’ that discovered that poverty is linked to children’s injuries!! Am I alone is wishing that editors would resist publishing studies that simply repeat what is already well known? When a Journal asks authors to state “what this study adds” or something along those lines, I think reviewers need to look carefully at what is written and decide if the paper in their hands is not simply a ‘me too’.  And, please don’t say that some repetition is justified because it has never been shown to be true for Little Forks, Stateville, Timbucktoo before!

Or am I simply being too crotchety on this cold, miserable Monday in Montreal? And, yes, before I am leapt upon too vigorously, I do agree that most new findings require replication. But come on…. there must be a limit to how often a well documented finding can be reported!