Author: Alison McCook

Can misconduct be fun? A new game wants to find out

lab wars1
Caezar Al-Jassar and Kuly Heer

Can’t get enough of the personal and professional politics that dog a scientific career? On your off-hours, you can play a new game called Lab Wars, which lets players reenact the best – and the worst – parts of climbing the scientific career ladder. It was developed by two researchers — Caezar Al-Jassar, a structural biologist at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, and his partner Kuly Heer, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire – while they were on vacation together in Spain last year, according to The Scientist. The pair launched a Kickstarter campaign this week to raise money to manufacture and sell the game — and quickly met their funding goal, and then some.

Retraction Watch: You say the game — also featured this week in Nature — was inspired by author Michael Brooks. How? Continue reading Can misconduct be fun? A new game wants to find out

Should researchers guilty of misconduct go to “rehab”?

Nature_latest-cover

A report on the first few years of “researcher rehab” suggests that three days of intensive training have a lasting impact on participants.

Specifically, among participants — all of whom had been found guilty of at least one type of misconduct — the authors report that:

A year later, follow-up surveys indicate that the vast majority have changed how they work.

The authors claim this shows the program is worth the time and investment — a $500,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health, and a cost of $3,000 per participant for the three-day course. Do you agree? Tell us what you think in our poll at the end of the story.

Infractions ranged from consent issues for human subjects, plagiarism, and outright fraud. Still, researchers who need this training aren’t much different from everyone else, the authors note in “Lessons of researcher rehab,” published today by Nature: Continue reading Should researchers guilty of misconduct go to “rehab”?

Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla

dalmeetJoin us in welcoming new staff writer Dalmeet Singh Chawla.

Dalmeet was inspired by talks at the 2014 Association of British Science Writers meeting (including by our own Ivan Oransky) to build a niche for himself as a writer – lucky for us, he chose science publishing. His focus has been on stories about innovations in scholarly publishing, but also covered peer review, authorship and publisher policies along the way.

As Dalmeet told us: Continue reading Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla

Pro-lifers call for JAMA to retract 2005 paper about fetal pain

JAMAPro-life activists have asked JAMA to retract a 2005 paper that suggested fetuses can’t feel pain before the third trimester.

Critics are arguing that newer findings have shown pain sensation appears earlier in gestation, yet the 2005 data continue to be cited in the discussion around abortion. What’s more, they note, some of the authors failed to mention their ties to the abortion industry.

The 2005 paper has been cited 191 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. We spoke with Howard Bauchner, Editor in Chief at JAMA and The JAMA Network, who told us something similar to what he said last week, when PETA asked to retract a paper they claim could be harmful to elephants: Continue reading Pro-lifers call for JAMA to retract 2005 paper about fetal pain

PLOS ONE republishes removed chronic fatigue syndrome data

PLOS OnePLOS ONE has republished data that were abruptly removed two weeks ago after the authors expressed concerns they did not have permission to release them.

The dataset — de-identified information from people with chronic fatigue syndrome — was removed May 18, noting it was “published in error.” But this week, the journal republished the dataset, saying the authors’ university had been consulted, and the dataset could be released.

This paper has drawn scrutiny for its similarities to a controversial “PACE” trial of chronic fatigue syndrome.

Here’s the second correction notice for “Therapist Effects and the Impact of Early Therapeutic Alliance on Symptomatic Outcome in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,” released June 1:

Continue reading PLOS ONE republishes removed chronic fatigue syndrome data

JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

JAMAA leading medical journal is taking a second look at a recent high-profile paper about elephants’ lower risk of cancer, after receiving a call for retraction from a somewhat unusual corner: the animal rights group PETA.

This isn’t the first time the activist group has called for a retraction — last year, it nudged a journal to pull a paper that had been flagged for fraud by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. Their latest target: A 2015 paper in JAMA, which PETA claims contains inaccurate information.

What’s more, the organization argues, Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus — which partly funded the research — is using the findings as “justification for the continued use of abusive training techniques with elephants.” Yesterday, PETA sent a letter to the journal asking it to either retract the paper or issue an expression of concern, claiming: Continue reading JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

Poll: Is duplication misconduct?

RW logoIf authors duplicate portions of their own work in multiple papers — such as descriptions of methods, a boilerplate background to their field, etc. — should that be considered misconduct?

Of course, to many journals, duplication — also known as “self-plagiarism” is a retractable offense. A recent letter to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) from the Council on Governmental Relations asked the agency to consider it misconduct, and “include self-plagiarism in the definition of plagiarism.” More specifically, the letter — reported by the Report on Research Compliance — says to new ORI director Kathy Partin:

Continue reading Poll: Is duplication misconduct?

Finnish universities must now use courts to revoke degrees

layout_set_logoA court in Finland has ruled that universities must go through the court system if they want to revoke a degree.

In a precedent-setting decision, a body dubbed “the court of last resort in administrative cases” in Finland ruled that universities must apply to them to revoke someone’s degree. The ruling, which occurred this month, took place after a former student filed an appeal after the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) cancelled his degree over charges of plagiarism and fraud.

Here is more from the publication Helsingin Sanomat (which we translated using One Hour Translation):  Continue reading Finnish universities must now use courts to revoke degrees

Guardian retracts 13 articles for fabrication; writer defends his work

nfNt_pGn_400x400The Guardian is taking down 13 articles and excerpts from others after a freelance writer couldn’t provide evidence for the material.

The writer, however, has defended his work, saying he simply lost his notes from earlier stories:

The claim that I fabricated stories is wrong.

Yesterday, the UK newspaper released a statement from editor Lee Glendinning entitled “A note to our readers about a reporter who breached our trust.” After sources in a February story said they’d never spoken to Joseph Mayton, a freelancer based in San Francisco, the paper launched an investigation: Continue reading Guardian retracts 13 articles for fabrication; writer defends his work

PLOS editors discussing authors’ decision to remove chronic fatigue syndrome data

After PLOS ONE allowed authors to remove a dataset from a paper on chronic fatigue syndrome, the editors are now “discussing the matter” with the researchers, given the journal’s requirements about data availability.

As Leonid Schneider reported earlier today, the 2015 paper was corrected May 18 to remove an entire dataset; the authors note that they were not allowed to publish anonymized patient data, but can release it to researchers upon request. The journal, however, requires that authors make their data fully available.

Here’s the correction notice: Continue reading PLOS editors discussing authors’ decision to remove chronic fatigue syndrome data