“I think journals should assume that all submitted papers are potentially flawed and editors should review individual patient data before publishing randomised controlled trials,” Carlisle wrote in his report.

This should be considered part of every journal's idea of due diligence and this shouldn't be a new idea. Shysters, con artists and snake oil salesmen have been around for a long time. The purpose of a Journal is to publish reliable information and weed out the garbage. How can you do that if you are not looking at the entire picture?