Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Backstabbing; plagiarism irony; preprints to the rescue

with 2 comments

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured a call for the retraction of a paper in NEJM, and a withdrawal of a paper because authors couldn’t pay the page charges. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 12th, 2015 at 9:30 am

Comments
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva September 12, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Some may find my latest opinion piece useful.
    Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) A call for greater editorial responsibilities. Science Editing 2(2): 89-91.
    http://escienceediting.org/upload/se-2-2-89.pdf
    DOI: 10.6087/kcse.50

  • scotus September 13, 2015 at 7:43 am

    Interesting developments in the Kumar Case. He is seeking damages for actions that resulted from the outcome of a research misconduct investigation. Without actually contesting the details of the investigation (which Kumar claims was “botched”), GWU responded that they should be immune from liability because their misconduct policy is a federal requirement of all grantee institutions. Kumar’s latest brief provides a counterargument to this point supported by some case law and decisions. The eventual outcome of this case could have broad ramifications.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.