A technical glitch prevented a story from reaching our email subscribers earlier today, so in case you missed it:
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.
A new letter signed by 20 researchers is casting additional doubts on the validity of a potentially invaluable lab tool — and alleges the lab that produced the initial results turned them away when they tried to replicate its findings in mammalian cells.
In a letter published this week in Protein & Cell, the researchers add their voices to the critics of the gene-editing technique, first described earlier this year in Nature Biotechnology.
The researchers outline their attempts to apply the technique — known as NgAgo — to a variety of cell types, which fell short:
Continue reading More questions arise over gene-editing tool
We knew that Wayne State University had investigated allegations of misconduct against Fazlul Sarkar, the scientist who is suing PubPeer commenters over criticisms of his work. We knew The Scientist had obtained a copy of the report, which concluded he had engaged in widespread misconduct, and he should retract more than 40 papers.
And now, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing PubPeer in court and has filed a motion to include the report as evidence in the case, we have a copy.
It’s a long read, but here are some highlights:
Continue reading Details of investigative report into Sarkar released by ACLU
A Nature Cell Biology paper published only a few months ago by prominent researchers in Taiwan has sparked a heated discussion on PubPeer, which now includes a comment allegedly from an author saying they have requested its retraction.
Although a representative of the journal wouldn’t confirm to us that the authors had requested a retraction, the comment on PubPeer says the paper contains several figures that were “inappropriately manipulated” by the first author.
Here’s the full comment on PubPeer, tagged as coming from one of the authors of the paper:
Continue reading Nature Cell Bio paper may be headed for retraction
Earlier this month, BioMed Central and Springer announced that they were retracting nearly 60 papers for a host of related issues, including manipulating the peer-review process. Recently, we were contacted by one of the reviewers who was impersonated by some of the authors of the retracted papers.
The scientist wants to remain anonymous, but provided us with emails that supported his version of events.
In case you need a refresher on the “events” that took place: The two publishers recently pulled 58 papers from authors mostly based in Iran, citing evidence of plagiarism, and manipulating the peer-review process and allocating authorship positions inappropriately.
It all started with a seemingly simple question, the scientist told us: Continue reading How fake peer review happens: An impersonated reviewer speaks
A diabetes researcher with eight retractions — despite his attempts to block some in court — has received a new batch of research funding.
According to a release from public funding agency Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP), Mario Saad is among 33 researchers who will receive funding from partnerships between federal and state agencies, including FAPESP.
It’s unclear how much Saad’s project will individually receive, but the total for all projects exceeds 640 million Brazilian Real, equivalent to $185 million USD.
Saad’s name should be familiar to our readers.
Continue reading New funding for researcher who sued to stop retractions (and now has 8)
A rising star in the field of infectious disease has resigned from the University of Dundee in Scotland after the university upheld the findings of an investigation concluding that he committed misconduct.
Earlier this year, Robert Ryan was suspended amidst the investigation, which focused on data doctoring in several publications. We’ve now been forwarded an internal email from Julian Blow, dean of the School of Life Sciences, which alerts staff that Ryan has resigned, and the institution has upheld its finding of misconduct, despite Ryan’s appeal.
In 2015, Ryan was selected to be an EMBO Young Investigator; yesterday, EMBO announced that it had withdrawn him from the program.
Blow’s email to staff, dated November 9, states:
Continue reading Prominent researcher in Scotland resigns after misconduct finding upheld
After five years, Elsevier has finally issued a notice of retraction for a paper it announced it was pulling for fraud in 2011.
All of the papers were produced by a research group in Brazil; all were retracted after the publisher conducted an investigation, concluding that the NMR results had been manipulated. At the time, the last author on the latest retraction, Claudio Airoldi, defended the work. Since then, however, Airoldi has logged two more retractions, bringing his total to 13.
Here’s the full text of the retraction notice, from Process Safety and Environmental Protection: Continue reading Official notice published for chem paper slated for retraction in 2011
A new analysis of more than 30 clinical trials co-authored by a bone researcher based in Japan is casting doubt on the legitimacy of the findings.
Yoshihiro Sato, based at Mitate Hospital, has already retracted 12 papers, for reasons ranging from data problems, to including co-authors without their consent, to self-plagiarism. Most of these retracted papers are included in the analysis in the journal Neurology, which concluded that Sato’s 33 randomized clinical trials exhibited patterns that suggest systematic problems with the results.
Other researchers have used similar approaches to analyze a researcher’s body of work — notably, when John Carlisle applied statistical tools to uncover problems in the research of notorious fraudster Yoshitaka Fujii, and Uri Simonsohn, who sniffed out problems with the work of social psychologist Dirk Smeesters.
Author Mark Bolland of the University of Auckland told us he was surprised by his findings: Continue reading Analysis casts doubt on bone researcher’s body of work
The way we rank individuals and institutions simply does not work, argues Yves Gingras, Canada Research Chair in the History and Sociology of Science, based at the University of Quebec in Montreal. He should know: In 1997, he cofounded the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, which measures innovation in science and technology, and where he is now scientific director. In 2014, he wrote a book detailing the problems with our current ranking system, which has now been translated into English. Below, he shares some of his conclusions from “Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses.”
Retraction Watch: You equate modern bibliometric rankings of academic performance to the fable about the Emperor’s New Clothes, in which no one dares to tell a leader that he is not wearing an invisible suit – rather, he is naked. Why did you choose that metaphor? Continue reading We are judging individuals and institutions unfairly. Here’s what needs to change.