This week at Retraction Watch saw us report on thousands of retractions from IEEE, which will have a serious effect on retraction record-keeping, a bizarre case of author impersonation, and a look at dentistry in outer space. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Following revelations of data issues and other problems (which crashed our server last week), Science is retracting a paper claiming that short conversations could change people’s minds on same-sex marriage. The co-author who admitted to faking the data “does not agree” to the retraction, according to Science. Here’s more from the note:
Ten years. On Aug. 3, 2010, we published our first post on Retraction Watch. Titled, “Why write a blog about retractions?”, the welcome letter to readers outlined our hopes for the new blog. Retractions, we felt then, offered “a window into the scientific process,” as well as a source of good stories for journalists. In … Continue reading Retraction Watch turns 10: A look back, and a look forward
How easy is it to change people’s minds? In 2014, a Science study suggested that a short conversation could have a lasting impact on people’s opinions about gay marriage – but left readers disappointed when it was retracted only months later, after the first author admitted to falsifying some of the details of the study, … Continue reading “Science advances incrementally:” Researchers who debunked gay canvassing study move field forward
Last month, the community was shaken when a major study on gay marriage in Science was retracted following questions on its funding, data, and methodology. The senior author, Donald Green, made it clear he was not privy to many details of the paper — which raised some questions for C. K. Gunsalus, director of the National … Continue reading “If you think it’s rude to ask to look at your co-authors’ data, you’re not doing science”: Guest post
The week at Retraction Watch featured the story behind a Nature retraction, and the retraction of a paper by a pioneer in the field of exosome research. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The New York Times has an editorial today with which we wholeheartedly agree: The newspaper is calling on scientists — and even the government — to pay more attention to misconduct in research. (It also doesn’t hurt that the paper mentions us.) The proximate cause of the editorial, titled “Scientists Who Cheat,” is the retraction … Continue reading New York Times pushes for more focus, funding on research misconduct
As might have been expected, continuing developments in the Michael LaCour gay canvassing study retraction have drowned out coverage of stories that ordinarily might capture a lot of attention, such as fake case reports making their way into CDC data. A sampling: Berkeley graduate student David Broockman, one of the people whose critique brought down … Continue reading Weekend reads: Gay canvassing study saga continues; Elsevier policy sparks concern; a string of scandals
As promised, Michael LaCour, the co-author of the now-retracted Science paper on gay canvassing, has posted a detailed response to the allegations against him. In the 23-page document — available here — LaCour claims to introduce evidence uncovering discrepancies between the timeline of events presented in Broockman et al. (2015) and the actual timeline of … Continue reading Data “were destroyed due to privacy/confidentiality requirements,” says co-author of retracted gay canvassing study
In what can only be described as a remarkable and swift series of events, one of the authors of a much-ballyhooed Science paper claiming that short conversations could change people’s minds on same-sex marriage is retracting it following revelations that the data were faked by his co-author. [3:45 p.m. Eastern, 5/28/15: Please see an update … Continue reading Author retracts study of changing minds on same-sex marriage after colleague admits data were faked