The last author is baffled as to why the journal couldn’t have made that call before they published the abstract.
PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.
The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Read the rest of this entry »
On Monday, we were first to report that a study of green coffee bean extract for weight loss touted on the Dr. Oz Show had been retracted.
Doing the right thing: Authors retract PNAS paper when new experiments show “conclusion was incorrect”
“Editors are pleased to receive death threats on the third Thursday of the month:” A new journal launches
Inference’s first issue includes a lengthy review of a laboratory by a tennis instructor, a set of caricatures, and an exchange of emails from 1996 that is “perhaps, less remarkable for what it says than for the fact that it took place at all.”
In short, its editors — who “would prefer to remain anonymous” — seem to share a sense of humor with the editors of the Journal of Universal Rejection or the Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science: Read the rest of this entry »