Undisclosed conflicts, lightning-fast peer review: One Alzheimer’s journal’s role in a failed drug

Retraction Watch readers are likely familiar with the work of Charles Piller, an award-winning investigative reporter who has been covering problematic research in neuroscience and other fields for Science. We’re pleased to offer an excerpt of his new book, Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s, which publishes today. The Journal … Continue reading Undisclosed conflicts, lightning-fast peer review: One Alzheimer’s journal’s role in a failed drug

Papers on Alzheimer’s slapped with expressions of concern

A Science journal has issued expressions of concern for two papers on Alzheimer’s disease over concerns about the integrity of the data.  One involves a 2016 article by a star-studded group of neuroscience researchers over allegations of manipulated data in one of the figures. That paper, “Gain-of-function mutations in protein kinase Cα (PKCα) may promote … Continue reading Papers on Alzheimer’s slapped with expressions of concern

Weekend reads: 50 years after Tuskegee; ‘Is psychological science self-correcting?’; ‘The peer review system is broken’

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured: An editor invited me to submit a commentary, then he rejected it – and named and blamed me in an editorial University of Fukui professor called out for fake peer review, loses “love hormone” paper … Continue reading Weekend reads: 50 years after Tuskegee; ‘Is psychological science self-correcting?’; ‘The peer review system is broken’