Another domino has fallen for the infamous and prolific former anesthesiologist Scott Reuben. This time it’s a retraction for a letter to the editor that cites one of his since-retracted papers. The letter, published in 2001, argues that local anesthesia is a “safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practical alternative to the use of epidural, spinal, or general anesthesia” for … Continue reading Scott Reuben notches 25th retraction, for a letter to the editor
In the beginning, there was Scott Reuben. Well, not quite. Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist who fabricated data and briefly topped our list of most-retracted authors, didn’t invent research fraud, although he did spend six months in federal prison for his crimes. But his case was in no small measure responsible for the birth of this … Continue reading Is post-hoc statistical analysis the new fraud detection tool? A new review looks at fraudster Reuben’s work
We are pleased to present an excerpt from The Predatory Paradox: Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing by Amy Koerber, Jesse C. Starkey, Karin Ardon-Dryer, R. Glenn Cummins, Lyombe Eko, and Kerk F. Kee, published by Open Book Publishers, October 2023. In 2015, Johannes Bohannon, along with three coauthors, published an article titled … Continue reading A closer look at the ‘chocolate with high cocoa content’ hoax
Over the years, many papers have cited the work of Retraction Watch, whether a blog post, an article we’ve written for another outlet, or our database. Here’s a selection. Know of one we’ve missed? Let us know at [email protected]. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like … Continue reading Papers that cite Retraction Watch
In yet more evidence that retracted studies continue to accrue citations, a new paper has shown that nearly half of anesthesiologist Scott Reuben’s papers have been cited five years after being retracted, and only one-fourth of citations correctly note the retraction. According to the new paper, in Science and Engineering Ethics:
A new paper by Chicago pharmacy researchers suggests that researchers performing drug studies are more likely to commit fraud than are their colleagues in the rest of biomedicine. In the paper, “Retraction Publications in the Drug Literature,” which appears in Pharmacotherapy, Jennifer C. Samp, Glen T. Schumock, and A. Simon Pickard take a look at … Continue reading Is misconduct more likely in drug trials than in other biomedical research?
The recent criminal indictment of a medical school professor and former scientific advisor to Cassava Sciences on fraud charges for manipulating images in scientific papers and applications for federal funding is a “rare” outcome for such alleged actions that “sends a very, very powerful message.” That’s according to lawyers who have worked on research misconduct … Continue reading ‘Rare’ criminal charges for data manipulation in Cassava case send a ‘powerful message’: lawyers
Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured: Study of cryotherapy for COVID-19 anosmia fails the sniff test Psych journal in revolt as it publishes paper saying masturbation and gay sex are harmful Award-winning Berkeley postdoc faked data, says federal watchdog Murder … Continue reading Weekend reads: False data in Columbia rankings?; data service accused of intimidating researchers; preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers
Last month, Retraction Watch reported on the case of Hironobo Ueshima, an anesthesiology researcher found guilty of misconduct in more than 140 papers. A journal editor, John Loadsman, was the first to suspect there were issues in Ueshima’s work. But this was hardly the first time Loadsman had been the canary in the coal mine … Continue reading Meet a sleuth whose work has led to the identification of hundreds of fraudulent papers
Ten years. On Aug. 3, 2010, we published our first post on Retraction Watch. Titled, “Why write a blog about retractions?”, the welcome letter to readers outlined our hopes for the new blog. Retractions, we felt then, offered “a window into the scientific process,” as well as a source of good stories for journalists. In … Continue reading Retraction Watch turns 10: A look back, and a look forward