How does retraction change publishing behavior? Mark Bolland and Andrew Grey, who were two members of a team whose work led to dozens of retractions for Yoshihiro Sato, now third on the Retraction Watch leaderboard, joined forces with Vyoma Mistry to find out. We asked Bolland to answer several questions about the new University of … Continue reading How often do authors with retractions for misconduct continue to publish?
Retraction Watch readers may recall the name Yoshihiro Sato. The late researcher’s retraction total — now at 51 — gives him the number four spot on our leaderboard. He’s there because of the work of four researchers, Andrew Grey, Mark Bolland, and Greg Gamble, all of the University of Auckland, and Alison Avenell, of the … Continue reading New study finds “important deficiencies” in university reports of misconduct
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 a look at a court case that suggests senior researchers … Continue reading Weekend reads: Researcher loses grant following bullying allegations; 40+ retractions later, still an enigma; predatory journal critic suspended
When you think a retraction notice doesn’t tell the whole story, what should you do? For one group of researchers who’ve been closely following how journals handle the work associated with a bone researcher found guilty of misconduct, the actions of one publication were too problematic to let go. So the researchers wrote to the … Continue reading Dear editor: Your retraction notice stinks
In early 2011, less than six months after we launched Retraction Watch, we came across a retraction from a surgery journal. The notice was scant on details, so co-founder Adam Marcus called the editor to ask why the paper had been retracted. The answer: “It’s none of your damn business.” It turns out that’s still … Continue reading Journal editors still don’t like talking about misconduct. And that’s a problem.
Over the years, we have written about a number of the sleuths who, on their own time and often at great risks to their careers or finances, have looked for issues in the scientific literature. Here’s a sampling:
Title: Homocysteine as a predictive factor for hip fracture in elderly women with Parkinson’s disease What Caught Our Attention: In a letter to the editor, researchers led by Mark Bolland recently outlined the many reasons why a study by Yoshihiro Sato and colleagues in The American Journal of Medicine was “unreliable,” including evidence that the … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: No retraction for “likely fraudulent” study
As a bone researcher continues to accrue retractions, an investigation at his former university has found misconduct in more than a dozen papers. On Nov. 15, Japan’s Hirosaki University announced it had identified fabrication and authorship issues in 13 papers by Yoshihiro Sato, and plagiarism in another. Sato, a professor at Hirosaki University Medical School … Continue reading University investigation finds misconduct by bone researcher with 23 retractions
A bone researcher has lost three more papers for scientific misconduct. The new retractions bring Yoshihiro Sato’s total to 17 and put him on our Leaderboard. According to the retraction notices, Sato asked the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry to retract three of his papers “due to scientific misconduct.” In the letter, Sato—who is corresponding … Continue reading Bone researcher is up to 17 retractions
Last week, JAMA issued some unusual notices, letting readers know they should use caution when reading an editorial and letters associated with now-retracted articles by a bone researcher in Japan. The notices — for papers by Yoshihiro Sato, now up to 14 retractions — remind readers not to heed the results of the now-retracted papers, … Continue reading JAMA tells readers: “Caution advised.” Here’s why.