Supportive Care in Cancer
journal
Supportive Care in Cancer is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering research on cancer care. It is published by Springer Science+Business Media on behalf of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2013 impact factor of 2.495.
In 2016, Supportive Care in Cancer published an article by Milena Penkowa, who had previously been convicted of fraud and been found guilty of scientific misconduct. The article (Bismuth adjuvant ameliorates adverse effects of high-dose chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma and malignant lymphoma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation: a randomised, double-blind, prospective pilot study) contained blatant and obvious scientific errors, verified as errors by multiple experts. For example, the article gives a p-value of 0.0001, where a simple calculation check reveals the p-value to be 0.41. In spite of that, and to the incredulousness of Professor Peter Reinhard Hansen, the supposedly peer-reviewed article has not been retracted yet as of September 2019, two years after Supportive Care in Cancer itself had published a letter to the editor detailing the errors. A retraction notice was published by Supportive Care in Cancer in October 2020.
The public source identifies “Supportive Care in Cancer” as journal. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Supportive, Care and Cancer.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Supportive Care in Cancer”, the useful work is to connect “journal” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 24, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q15766919. 3 of 3 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2013, 2016, 2019 and 2020.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Supportive Care in Cancer”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Supportive Care in Cancer primary sources, Supportive Care in Cancer archive and Supportive research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Supportive Care in Cancer”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Supportive Care in Cancer” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.