Fracking paper overstated size of methane leak from Marcellus Shale, earning retraction

Last spring, a group of environmental scientists reported an impressive finding: Hydraulic fracturing (better known as fracking) in the Marcellus Shale region of the eastern United States was leaking enough methane to power a city twice the size of Washington, D.C. (We didn’t come up with that comparison, apt though it may be.) Turns out … Continue reading Fracking paper overstated size of methane leak from Marcellus Shale, earning retraction

Authors retract study that found pollution near fracking sites

The authors of two environmental papers, including one about the effects of fracking on human health, have retracted them after discovering crucial mistakes. One of the studies reported an increased level of air pollution near gas extraction sites, and the other suggested that 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico contributed to air contamination. … Continue reading Authors retract study that found pollution near fracking sites

Double-dipping equals double retraction for fracking paper

Transport in Porous Media and the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering have retracted two articles on shale gas by Chinese researchers for duplication and other “mistakes.” The articles came from a group at the State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation at Southwest Petroleum University, in Chengdu. The articles share … Continue reading Double-dipping equals double retraction for fracking paper

Undisclosed industry funding prompts correction of fracking paper

Environmental Science & Technology has issued a correction for a March 2015 paper on methane contamination from gas wells after learning that the authors failed to disclose funding from Chesapeake Energy Corp., a major U.S. energy producer. The paper, “Methane Concentrations in Water Wells Unrelated to Proximity to Existing Oil and Gas Wells in Northeastern … Continue reading Undisclosed industry funding prompts correction of fracking paper

Weekend reads: What’s wrong with peer review; a retraction poem; how journal formats mangle science

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on the effects of fracking, authors who retracted a paper when they realized they’d been studying the wrong species, and a story about why a paper linked to an alleged doping scandal in Norway was retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Environmental group alleges scientific fraud in disputed methane studies

Note: We are reprinting below an article originally published at InsideClimate News. The inspector general of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been asked to examine whether a significant recent study of greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas fields was technically flawed—and whether researchers brushed aside concerns that methane pollution was being understated. The … Continue reading Environmental group alleges scientific fraud in disputed methane studies

Weekend reads: Science press releases under fire; a new plagiarism excuse; win $1,000

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of an entire issue of a journal and a renewable energy researcher agree to retract ten papers for recycling, and saw The Australian put us on its list of “30 Most Influential” in higher education for 2016. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates

The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: