A 2014 paper in Science by a lab in Toronto has been retracted after a December expression of concern raised “potential data integrity issues.”
The paper, “Mitosis Inhibits DNA Double-Strand Break Repair to Guard Against Telomere Fusions,” is from the lab of Daniel Durocher, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.
The retraction notice, published today and signed by all of the original authors, reads, in part:
Continue reading Science paper by Toronto lab retracted
A biotech company whose CEO faced allegations of manipulating data in papers used in NIH grant applications will pay a settlement of $4 million to resolve those allegations, the Department of Justice announced January 6.
The settlement is the latest installment in a series of allegations surrounding research by Leen Kawas, the former CEO of the company, Bothell, Wash.-based Athira Pharma. In October 2021, four months after placing cofounder and then-CEO Kawas on leave, an internal investigation found she falsified images in her doctoral dissertation and at least four research papers.
But concerns had been raised about the images as early as 2016, and Athira failed to report them, the DOJ statement noted. Those papers “were referenced in several grant applications submitted to NIH, including in a grant that NIH funded in 2019,” the statement continued.
Continue reading Biotech company agrees to pay $4 million to settle data falsification allegations
The publisher of the Journal of Human Evolution says it does not use artificial intelligence in its production process, contrary to a statement issued last month by the journal’s editorial board when all but one member of the group resigned.
The statement, shared on X on December 26, noted the journal’s “joint Editors-in-Chief, all Emeritus Editors retired or active in the field, and all but one Associate Editor” were resigning because Elsevier, the journal’s publisher, “has steadily eroded the infrastructure essential to the success of the journal while simultaneously undermining the core principles and practices that have successfully guided the journal for the past 38 years.” Among the examples cited:
Continue reading Elsevier denies AI use in response to evolution journal board resignations
Please join us in welcoming two new Retraction Watch staff members: Managing editor Kate Travis, and reporter Avery Orrall.
Kate comes to us with a long and impressive resume. She has served as digital director at Science News, an editor for Science’s careers website, Science Careers, and news editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. She contributed a chapter to A Tactical Guide to Science Journalism, is the coordinator of the National Association of Science Writers’ Science in Society Journalism Awards, and serves as the part-time managing editor of Connector, an online library of resources on science writing produced by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. Reach her at [email protected].
Avery’s name will be familiar to readers, as she was one of our two summer interns last year and has since been our newsletter editor. She is a recent graduate of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, and has also interned at JAMA Medical News. Reach her at [email protected].
Continue reading Meet Retraction Watch’s two new journalists
Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?
Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘Honest overachievers;’ the unpublished Lucy Letby paper; ‘atom-thin salami slicing’
We’re thrilled to announce the creation of the Retraction Watch Sleuth in Residence Program, an opportunity for a sleuth to spend a year working with us.
Too often, sleuths work for free, often at great legal and personal risk. We want to build capacity in this space so others see the value of compensating and protecting the critical work of sleuths.
The goal of this program – funded by a generous donation from George Tidmarsh – is to offer a secure and paid position for an active sleuth with a proven track record. The Sleuth in Residence would work closely with our research team on specific projects, and with our journalism team to publish their findings. All of that work would go through rigorous review and be covered by our defamation insurance policy.
Continue reading Introducing the Retraction Watch Sleuth in Residence Program