Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer researcher at the Whitehead Institute, issued a correction to a paper in Oncogene in May, fixing two errors missed during proofing. We found this one a little late, obviously. It also appears to be a relatively minor correction, not one that appears worthy of retraction. We’ve gotten feedback from readers … Continue reading Cancer research pioneer Robert Weinberg corrected Oncogene paper
Another domino has fallen in a chain of retractions for Robert Weinberg, the man who discovered the first tumor-causing gene in humans, along with the first tumor suppressor gene: Cancer Research just retracted a paper of his on some of the molecular steps to metastasis. The paper, “Concurrent Suppression of Integrin α5, Radixin, and RhoA Phenocopies … Continue reading Cancer Research retraction is fifth for Robert Weinberg; fourth for his former student
Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer scientist whose papers often notch hundreds or thousands of citations, has lost a fourth paper, this time a 2009 publication in Cell. Journal Genes and Development pulled two of Weinberg’s papers in March, stating that they had retracted the 2009 study because data from several experiments was used in figures that seemed to represent … Continue reading Other shoe drops for MIT cancer researcher Robert Weinberg as Cell retraction appears
Two identical retraction notices have popped up for MIT professor Robert Weinberg, a highly-cited cancer researcher who had a retraction and a correction in 2013, both in Cancer Cell. These two new retractions, in Genes and Development, stem directly from another paper by Weinberg and colleagues in Cell that will apparently be retracted, as the “same analytical methodology was used,” … Continue reading Two more retractions appear for prominent MIT cancer researcher Robert Weinberg
Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? The week at Retraction Watch featured: Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. 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 250 titles. And have … Continue reading Weekend reads: Retractions at Columbia; retractions for a rector; the early days of peer review
Sometimes, a paper comes along that is so revolutionary, it defies description. So rather than try to do justice to a recent paper in Parasitology Research, we’ll reproduce a few paragraphs here:
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the University of Alabama’s request for 20 retractions of papers … Continue reading Weekend reads: Science is “show me,” not “trust me;” pressure to publish survey data; what peer review misses
Last year, an emergency medicine journal retracted a letter to the editor because it didn’t include the author’s potential conflict of interest. Now, it’s had a change of heart. Earlier this month, the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine withdrew the retraction after determining the author, Guy Weinberg, had, in fact, provided information about his potential conflict … Continue reading A retraction gets retracted
An emergency medicine journal has retracted a letter to the editor, saying it didn’t include the author’s relevant commercial interest—which the author says he tried to disclose when he submitted the paper. The author, Guy Weinberg, told Retraction Watch he had noted his conflict of interest when he submitted the letter last March, but said … Continue reading Journal retracts letter for missing disclosure author says he tried to submit
Less than a week after publishing a much-discussed hoax paper, a scholarly publisher has acknowledged that it had chosen reviewers for the paper whose “expertise did not fully align with this subject matter.” The subject matter: that the penis should not be considered an anatomical organ, but more as a concept – “a gender-performative, highly fluid social … Continue reading Publisher blames bad choice of reviewer for publication of hoax paper on penis as “social construct”