Search Results for: liz wager

How journal editors can detect and deter scientific misconduct, part 2, from COPE’s Liz Wager

Last week, we shared Ivan’s presentation on how journal editors can detect and deter misconduct from the annual Council of Science Editors meeting. This week, we’re pleased to share another presentation from that panel. This one is by Liz Wager, chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics. Wager’s name will be familiar to Retraction Watch … Continue reading How journal editors can detect and deter scientific misconduct, part 2, from COPE’s Liz Wager

Blood retracts stem cell paper from Amy Wagers’ Harvard lab after 14 months of concern

More than 14 months after Blood issued a notice of concern about a paper by a Harvard stem cell scientist and her former post-doc, the journal has retracted the article. Here’s the notice for the paper, “Osteolineage niche cells initiate hematopoietic stem cell mobilization,” by Shane Mayack and Amy Wagers:

Scientist raised serious questions about 2008 Cell study by Amy Wagers

Amy Wagers, a Harvard stem cell researcher, retracted a Nature study last week and has another published paper under scrutiny at Blood. Retraction Watch has now learned that a 2008 Cell paper she co-authored drew significant criticism from a stem cell researcher at Children’s National Medical Center. In the paper, Wagers and her team said … Continue reading Scientist raised serious questions about 2008 Cell study by Amy Wagers

Blood posts “notice of concern” over second Wagers-Mayack paper

A day after an up and coming Harvard stem cell scientist retracted a Nature paper, Blood has issued a notice of concern about another paper by the same group, published in August 2008, the Boston Globe reports. Such notices often, but not always, precede retractions. According to the notice for “Osteolineage niche cells initiate hematopoietic … Continue reading Blood posts “notice of concern” over second Wagers-Mayack paper

Weekend reads: Death of a cancer lab; women economists’ papers are more readable; self-correction grows

The week at Retraction Watch featured a study of why researchers commit misconduct, and the story of former Northwestern scientist who sued the university for defamation. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Scientist slams bloggers; men love their own work; public science broken?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a paper on reincarnation being retracted because it was plagiarized from Wikipedia, the swift retraction of a paper claiming that women’s makeup use was tied to testosterone levels, and a lot of news about trachea surgeon Paolo Macchiarini.  Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Sharing data is a good thing. But we need to consider the costs.

Last week, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors proposed requiring authors to share deidentified patient data underlying the published results of clinical trials within six months of publication. The proposal has earned much support but also some concerns – for example that other scientists might poach the findings, acting as the New England Journal of … Continue reading Sharing data is a good thing. But we need to consider the costs.

Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: