About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘studies about retractions’ Category

Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year?

with one comment

booksAnother very busy week at Retraction Watch. There were a lot of gems elsewhere. Here’s a sampling: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

April 19, 2014 at 10:11 am

How common is scientific misconduct in Nigeria?

with one comment

nigeriaWe’ve only covered one retraction from Nigeria. But as we’ve often noted, retraction rates don’t necessarily correlate with rates of problematic research, so the low number doesn’t really answer the question in this post’s title.

Lucky for us, a group of authors have started publishing surveys of Nigerian scientists on the subject. In a new such survey published in BMC Medical Ethics, Patrick I. Okonta and Theresa Rossouw asked 150 researchers to fill out a questionnaire during a scientific conference in 2010. Most of them — 133 — complied. Their findings? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

April 15, 2014 at 9:30 am

Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

with 5 comments

booksAnother super-busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening in around the web in scientific publishing, misconduct, and related issues: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

April 12, 2014 at 10:59 am

Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?

with 13 comments

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

April 5, 2014 at 9:50 am

Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?

with 10 comments

Paul Brookes, via URMC

Paul Brookes, via URMC

As Retraction Watch readers will likely recall, Paul Brookes ran Science-Fraud.org anonymously until early 2013, when he was outed and faced legal threats that forced him to shut down the site. There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the experience, some of which Brookes discussed with Science last month.

Today, PeerJ published Brookes’ analysis of the response to critiques on Science-Fraud.org. It’s a compelling examination that suggests public scrutiny of the kind found on the site — often harsh, but always based solidly on evidence — is linked to more corrections and retractions in the literature.

Brookes looked at

497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized.

His results?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

April 3, 2014 at 11:30 am

Some authors seem to cite their own retracted studies. Should we be concerned?

with 14 comments

sci eng ethicsSome authors of retracted studies persist in citing their retracted work, according to a new study in Science and Engineering Ethics that calls the trend “very concerning.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 31, 2014 at 9:30 am

Weekend reads: Stem cell researchers falsifying data, neuroscience research forgets statistics tests

with 16 comments

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s some of what was happening elsewhere on the web: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 29, 2014 at 9:34 am

Weekend reads: Impact factor mania, male scientists citing themselves, insecure careers in academia

with 15 comments

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch, which we kicked off by asking for your support. Have you contributed yet? Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 22, 2014 at 9:00 am

Journal editors, an NIH bioethicist wants to hear your experiences with retractions

with 11 comments

David Resnik, via NIH

David Resnik, via NIH

David Resnik, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) bioethicist who has published on retractions and corrections, is apparently hoping to do so again. In a request for information that went out from the NIH last week, Resnik seeks: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 18, 2014 at 11:30 am

Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

with 13 comments

anniversaryGentle readers: Since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.

Now, we’re hoping some of you will consider making a financial contribution. To continue to grow Retraction Watch, we will need resources. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!).

How will we use the money? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 17, 2014 at 9:30 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,345 other followers