Weekend reads: Article retracted because of “racial characterizations;” India’s high retraction rate; meet the fraud finder

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a judge’s ruling that a university could not revoke a PhD; an author who stole a manuscript during peer review; and corrections because a researcher threatened to sue for using his scale. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

8 thoughts on “Weekend reads: Article retracted because of “racial characterizations;” India’s high retraction rate; meet the fraud finder”

  1. “A UK doctor who conducted clinical trials for drug companies loses his license for enrolling ineligible patients and other dishonesty in his research.”
    I am sorry, who is dishonesty?

    1. An editor might have recommended that a comma be placed after the word patients, but the meaning is still pretty clear to me. Try adding the comma and see if that helps you. Glad to provide further explanation if needed.

  2. <<>>
    This is a misleading pointer to the article. The Nature piece is about monetary rewards for the publication of peer-reviewed science. The retraction rate is merely quoted, and concerns expressed about incentivizing fraud. The retraction rate or ways to address it are not discussed in any detail. Scientific research in India certainly needs revamping, but this quote reads a bit like clickbait.

      1. RW is a necessary and useful corrective against fraudulent science. If it is to be credible, its own standards must be beyond reproach. A retweet is a poor metric – an informal, circular citation is all it is. RW cited this journalist’s article and she cited RW in return, drawing attention to her article again, this time to a wider audience. I would not argue with the proposition that certain segments of Indian science are demonstrably degenerate. However, a connection between the yet-to-be-implemented financial incentive for publication and India’s alarming retraction rate has not been established. Although relevant, it is speculative and tangential to the news being reported.

  3. “•“In an attempt to reduce the incidence of referring to retracted papers, it would be wise for the editorial board to include a notice in the ‘guidelines for authors’ section; the authors would be advised to carefully investigate their manuscript-related references for retraction. A more advanced step would be the creation of online software that alerts authors, as well as the editors, about retracted publications.” (Veterinary Anaesthesia and Anagelsia) We’re happy to help.”

    Too bad there isn’t a way to shephardize scientific articles the same way court citations are shephardized. (For those who don’t know, shephardizing means reviewing every case which has cited a decision to determine whether the decision has been overturned, limited, or extended on review by other courts, once primarily done by consulting “Shephard’s Citations”)

Leave a Reply to mike Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.