Seralini paper released by predatory publisher is plagiarized by predatory journal

A 2012 paper co-authored by Gilles Seralini, who has published controversial research showing the dangers of genetically modified foods, has been plagiarized by another researcher. The 2016 paper, published in the International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, has not been retracted, but the text comparison is fairly obvious. It’s a case of intra-predatory crime: the International Journal … Continue reading Seralini paper released by predatory publisher is plagiarized by predatory journal

Seralini paper claiming GMO toxicity disappears after journal domain expires

A paper claiming genetically modified corn may be toxic over long periods has disappeared one day after it was presented at a press conference, after the journal’s domain name expired. The paper, co-authored by Gilles Seralini — who has published controversial research showing harms of GM food — appeared in the Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Sciences (SJAS). On Tuesday, … Continue reading Seralini paper claiming GMO toxicity disappears after journal domain expires

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

In our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper: The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to … Continue reading Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

A highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been republished. Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, … Continue reading Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest

Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of items about scientific publishing, research misconduct, and related issues from around the web:

Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted

A heavily criticized study of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats is being retracted — one way or another. The paper — by Gilles Seralini and colleagues — was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology last year. There have been calls for retraction since then, along with other criticism … Continue reading Controversial Seralini GMO-rats paper to be retracted

Unearthed emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper

A trove of internal documents from Monsanto, recently unsealed in a lawsuit against the agricultural biotech giant, has revealed the firm’s role in the knotty tale of a paper from the lab of a scientist known for his stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That paper is “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and … Continue reading Unearthed emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper

Weekend reads: Go ahead, plagiarize and sabotage your colleagues; star surgeon’s days at Karolinska numbered

The week at Retraction Watch featured a case of a disappearing journal, lots of bad news for Olivier Voinnet, and advice on what to do when you make a mistake. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data

The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: California universities battle in court for research dollars; fake conferences; fake impact factors

This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the nuances of replication efforts, aka “the replication paradox,” as well as yet another story of fake peer reviews, this time at Hindawi. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: