Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Search Results

Caught Our Notice: Researcher who sued PubPeer commenter draws 19th retraction  

with one comment

Via Wikimedia

Title: Increased Ras GTPase activity is regulated by miRNAs that can be attenuated by CDF treatment in pancreatic cancer cells

What Caught Our Attention: We’ve been following cancer scientist Fazlul Sarkar for years, as he (unsuccessfully) sought to expose the identity of a PubPeer commenter who he believes cost him a job offer. In November 2016, the ACLU released a copy of a misconduct investigation report compiled by Wayne State University, which concluded Sarkar ran a laboratory “culture” of “fabrication, falsification and/or plagiarism of data,” and recommended the retraction of 42 papers and correction of 10 papers. He’s now lodged his 19th retraction. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison Abritis

December 28th, 2017 at 11:00 am

New feature aims to draw journals into post-publication comments on PubPeer

with 5 comments

Brandon Stell

When a paper is challenged on PubPeer, is a journal paying attention? A new feature recently unveiled by the site makes it easier to find out. The Journal Dashboards allow journals to see what people are saying about the papers they published, and allows readers to know which journals are particularly responsive to community feedback. We spoke with co-founder Brandon Stell to get more information.

Retraction Watch: Can you briefly describe the Journal dashboards and how they work?

The dashboards are a collection of features that we created to make it easier for journal editors to track and react to comments on their journal.  The dashboards allow journals to create teams whose members receive immediate alerts to new PubPeer comments.  They will also be able to access other information such as statistics of commenting trends across the journal.  Specialized searches will also be available. At the moment the dashboards are available to journal editors only but we hope to offer a similar service for institutions in the near future.

RW: What prompted PubPeer to create the Journal dashboards?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

December 11th, 2017 at 8:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Journal flags four papers by researcher in Spain over figure issues noted on PubPeer

without comments

A journal has issued expression of concerns (EOCs) for four papers after a concerned reader notified the editors of issues in several figures.

According to the EOCs, the Journal of Cell Science (JCS) discussed the concerns with the corresponding author, José Ignacio Rodriguez-Crespo, and subsequently notified his institution, Complutense University of Madrid. Last year, all four papers were questioned on PubPeer (1, 2, 3, 4).

The journal’s executive editor, Sharon Ahmad, told us: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Victoria Stern

August 31st, 2017 at 11:00 am

Posted in spain

Meet PubPeer 2.0: New version of post-publication peer review site launches today

with 10 comments

Since it launched in 2012, PubPeer has grown to become a standard part of the scientific lexicon, and its numerous post-publication discussions have led to more editorial notices than we can count. But it’s also faced its share of critics, including a scientist who took the site to court to unmask commenters he alleged had cost him a job offer. The site won that case on appeal, but is today launching new features that will make it impossible for the site to reveal users’ identities, as well as easier to read and format comments. We spoke with PubPeer co-founder Brandon Stell about what to expect from the new site.

Retraction Watch: What changes have you introduced to the site?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

June 15th, 2017 at 8:00 am

Posted in pubpeer selections

PubPeer wins appeal of court ruling to unmask commenters

with 4 comments

Fazlul Sarkar

PubPeer is having a good day.

In a new ruling, a trio of judges on the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a 2015 decision mandating the site reveal the identity of anonymous commenters after a scientist sued them, claiming they cost him a job offer.

The judges stated that Fazlul Sarkar, the scientist suing the commenters, can continue pursuing a defamation case, but: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

December 7th, 2016 at 1:17 pm

PubPeer dealt blow in lawsuit against anonymous commenters

with 3 comments

Fazlul Sarkar

Fazlul Sarkar

PubPeer has suffered a setback in an ongoing lawsuit filed by a scientist who alleges the site’s anonymous commenters cost him a job.

This week, judges in the Court of Appeals in Michigan denied the request of the American Civil Liberties Union — which is representing PubPeer — to include an investigative report as part of evidence in the case. The report, by Wayne State University, found the plaintiff — Fazlul Sarkar — had committed widespread misconduct, and should retract scores of papers.

Alexander Abdo of the ACLU told us: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

December 2nd, 2016 at 8:30 am

Scientist embroiled with PubPeer engaged in “widespread research misconduct,” investigation finds

with 18 comments

Fazlul Sarkar

Fazlul Sarkar

An investigation into a scientist suing PubPeer commenters over criticisms of his work has concluded that the researcher engaged in widespread misconduct and should retract 42 papers.

The investigation report by Wayne State University, obtained by The Scientist, reveals that Fazlul Sarkar created a research environment that encouraged productivity but cut corners when it came to integrity: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

October 19th, 2016 at 2:00 pm

Sarkar vs. John Doe: What happened at this week’s hearing involving PubPeer

with 3 comments

Fazlul Sarkar

Fazlul Sarkar

On Tuesday, lawyers representing both sides of the ongoing suit filed by a scientist against PubPeer commenters appeared in court, alleging their criticisms of his work cost him a new job at the University of Mississippi.

In the case described as “FAZLUL SARKAR V JOHN DOE,” lawyers representing PubPeer, Sarkar, and the anonymous commenter at the heart of the case spoke before two judges (one was absent). As the case now stands, a judge has ruled that all but one of the commenters can remain anonymous, and PubPeer has filed an appeal, earning the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as Google and Twitter.

According to one of the attorneys representing PubPeer, Alex Abdo at the ACLU, things proceeded as expected. Their main argument, he said, was: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

October 6th, 2016 at 9:30 am

Scientist faces off with PubPeer commenters in new hearing next week

with one comment

Fazlul Sarkar

Fazlul Sarkar

On Tuesday, a Detroit courtroom will hear arguments in a case against PubPeer commenters, in which a scientist alleges their criticisms of his work cost him a new job at the University of Mississippi.

This isn’t the first time both sides have met in court: Fazlul Sarkar first gained attention in 2014 when he sued anonymous commenters of PubPeer for defamation; in 2015, a judge ruled that all but one of the commenters should be allowed to remain anonymous. PubPeer has filed an appeal, earning the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as well as Google and Twitter.

Meanwhile, Sarkar has earned 18 retractions, many citing an institutional investigation at Wayne State University.

We spoke with attorney Alex Abdo at the ACLU, who is representing the PubPeer commenters in this case, about what to expect at next week’s hearing.

Retraction Watch: What will happen at this hearing? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison McCook

September 29th, 2016 at 2:00 pm

Here’s why more than 50,000 psychology studies are about to have PubPeer entries

with 16 comments

pubpeerPubPeer will see a surge of more than 50,000 entries for psychology studies in the next few weeks as part of an initiative that aims to identify statistical mistakes in academic literature.

The detection process uses the algorithm “statcheck” — which we’ve covered previously in a guest post by one of its co-developers — to scan just under 700,000 results from the large sample of psychology studies. Although the trends in Hartgerink’s present data are yet to be explored, his previous research suggests that around half of psychology papers have at least one statistical error, and one in eight have mistakes that affect their statistical conclusions. In the current effort, regardless of whether any mistakes are found, the results from the checks are then posted to PubPeer, and authors are alerted through an email.

Till now, the initiative is one of the biggest large-scale post-publication peer review efforts of its kind. Some researchers are, however, concerned about its current process of detecting potential mistakes, particularly the fact that potentially stigmatizing entries are created even if no errors are found. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Dalmeet Singh Chawla

September 2nd, 2016 at 11:35 am