Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct?

Lynøe N, Elinder G, Hallberg B, Rosén M, Sundgren P, Eriksson A

DOI: 10.1111/apa.13947
Published: 2017 Sep
Container: Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)
Publisher: Not recorded
Open access: unknown

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 43/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1111/apa.13947,
  title = {Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct?},
  author = {Lynøe N and Elinder G and Hallberg B and Rosén M and Sundgren P and Eriksson A},
  year = {2017},
  journal = {Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)},
  doi = {10.1111/apa.13947},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13947}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct?
AU  - Lynøe N
AU  - Elinder G
AU  - Hallberg B
AU  - Rosén M
AU  - Sundgren P
AU  - Eriksson A
PY  - 2017
JO  - Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)
DO  - 10.1111/apa.13947
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13947
ER  -

APA

N, L., G, E., B, H., M, R., P, S., & A, E. (2017). Is accepting circular reasoning in shaken baby studies bad science or misconduct?. Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992). https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13947

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-25T02:52:46.535Z