Before we present this weekÃ¢â‚¬s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider aÃ‚Â tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured plagiarism by a priest; retraction of a creationist paper “published … Continue reading Weekend reads: Journal editor fired for homophobic comments; “three-parent baby” paper mega-correction; the Bette Midler journal club
ItÃ¢â‚¬s become a sort of Retraction Watch Mad Libs: Author writes a paper that is so far, far, out of the mainstream. Maybe it argues that HIV doesnÃ¢â‚¬t cause AIDS. Or that vaccines cause autism. Truth squads swarm over the paper, taking to blogs and Twitter to wonder, in the exasperated tone of those who … Continue reading Journal retracts creationist paper Ã¢â‚¬Å“because it was published in errorÃ¢â‚¬ï¿½
Retraction Watch readers may have heard about Fr. Thomas Rosica, a priest who recently apologized for plagiarism and resigned from the board of a college. The case, which involved RosicaÃ¢â‚¬s speeches and popular columns, prompted at least two observers to take a look at his scholarly work. One of those observers was Michael Dougherty, who … Continue reading Plagiarism prompts retraction of 25-year-old article by prominent priest
Before we present this weekÃ¢â‚¬s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider aÃ‚Â tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a highly cited paper on the effects … Continue reading Weekend reads: The fake sex doctor and his bizarre research; prof alleged to have stolen student’s work; worst scientific scandal of all time?
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper by a journalist in Australia … Continue reading Weekend reads: Conflict of interest debate roils on; fake peer review scams; amateur hour at journals
A Washington University researcher has admitted to committing research misconduct in research involving eight U.S. government grants, according to a Federal watchdog, and resigned his position, according to the university. Srikanth Santhanam, a staff scientist in the department of internal medicine’s division of gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis, “voluntarily admitted to engaging in … Continue reading Wash U scientist admits to research misconduct, resigns post
How seriously are journals taking duplicated work that they publish? That was the question Mario Malički and colleagues set out to answer six years ago. And last month, they published their findings in Biochemia Medica. The upshot? Journals have a lot of work to do. Since we’re often asked why duplication is a problem, we’ll … Continue reading Journals are failing to address duplication in the literature, says a new study
A researcher in Malaysia is up to 18 retractions, for faked peer review and a host of other sins. We first wrote about Shahaboddin Shamshirband, of the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, in early 2017, because Elsevier had pulled, or planned to pull, nine of his papers. Jeffrey Beall, known for his list of … Continue reading Energy researcher up to 18 retractions
The Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) has retracted a 2003 paper that resulted from the PhD thesis of Maryanne Demasi, an Australian journalist whose reporting on statins and the risks of cancer from cell phones has been a lightning rod. The move, for what the journal says was attempts to reuse images to represent different … Continue reading Journal retracts paper by controversial Australian journalist
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a new entry on our leaderboard; a third retraction for … Continue reading Weekend reads: Why more papers should be retracted; predictors of “grateful” acknowledgements; multi-million dollar settlement for fake rankings data
Another year in the books — or journals — already? 2018 was another productive year for Retraction Watch. Topping our own leaderboard of achievements was the launch of our database of retractions, along with an analysis published in Science. With more than 18,000 entries, the repository is the largest of its kind. We are grateful … Continue reading The Year In Retractions, 2018: What 18,000+ retractions (and counting) told us
A former postdoc at the University of Michigan admitted to research misconduct, but lied about how extensive it was, according to a new finding by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). The ORI doesn’t describe Venkata Sudheer Kumar Ramadugu‘s misconduct — that detail will likely come later in the Federal Register, according to their … Continue reading Former UMich postdoc earns five-year ban on Federal funding, after admitting to misconduct and then lying
2018 was a busy year in retractions. (OK, they’ve all been busy for a while.) In what has become an annual tradition, our friends at The Scientist asked us to round up what we thought were the biggest retractions of the last 12 months. Head on over to see our picks. And when you’re done … Continue reading The Top 10 Retractions of 2018: From Anversa to Wansink, with a Kardashian along the way
A Cornell researcher whose work came under scrutiny earlier this year for text recycling has had a third paper retracted. The latest retraction for Robert Sternberg — whose work was the subject of allegations by Brendan O’Connor and Nick Brown — appears in the Review of General Psychology. Here’s the retraction notice for “A model of ethical reasoning:” … Continue reading Cornell psychology researcher sees “A model for ethical reasoning” retracted
Alfredo Fusco, a researcher in Italy who has faced criminal charges for research misconduct for more than five years, has had six more papers retracted, for a total of 21. The latest six retractions are all from Cancer Research. An example, for “Haploinsufficiency of the Hmga1 Gene Causes Cardiac Hypertrophy and Myelo-Lymphoproliferative Disorders in Mice,” a paper … Continue reading Alfredo Fusco, facing misconduct charges in Italy, up to 21 retractions
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction that took three years even after the university … Continue reading Weekend reads: How one scientist polluted the literature; a dog earns an authorship; poisoning in the lab
“In the original version of this Article, there were unusual aspects to the ‘Extract fecal DNA’ illustration in figure 1. These features have been removed.” With those 25 words, “one of the greatest scientific Easter eggs in a long time” or an image that was “highly unethical,” depending on your point of view, disappeared from … Continue reading “Unusual aspects” of a figure — aka a cartoon of Trump’s face in baboon feces — disappear from a journal
Is peer review a good way to weed out problematic papers? And if it is, which kinds of peer review? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Willem Halffman, of Radboud University, and Serge Horbach, of Radboud University and Leiden University, used our database of retractions to try to find out. We asked them several questions about … Continue reading Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?
On June 25, 2015, following an investigation into the work of a then-graduate student at University College Cork in Ireland, the senior author of a 2014 paper in PLOS ONE requested its retraction. The paper, said senior author Zubair Kabir in an email to Iratxe Puebla, the journal’s managing editor, was “fundamentally flawed.” Puebla responded … Continue reading The waiting game: A university requests a retraction. Then it waits three years.
Are current classification systems for research misconduct adequate? Toshio Kuroki — special advisor to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and Gifu University — thinks the answer is no. In a new paper in Accountability in Research, Kuroki — who has published on research misconduct before … Continue reading Is it time for a new classification system for scientific misconduct?