Author: Alison McCook

Whistleblower released after being held for 4 days in Bangkok airport

Wyn Ellis
Wyn Ellis

A UK academic who’s lived in Thailand for decades has just been released from the Bangkok airport where he had been held for four days, the apparent result of his years-ago decision to expose a Thai official who had plagiarized his PhD thesis.

A university investigation several years ago eventually found that Wyn Ellis was, indeed, correct: Supachai Lorlowhakarn, a director of a Thai agency involved in intellectual property rights, had plagiarized 80% of his thesis about asparagus cultivation from other sources. In 2012, Times Higher Education reported that Supachai Lorlowhakarn lost his doctorate degree.

But when Ellis — a consultant and coordinator for the UN’s Sustainable Rice Platform based in Thailand — arrived at the Bangkok airport on Thursday, says The Guardian:

immigration officials showed him a 2009 letter in which Supachai describes him as a “danger to Thai society”.

Yesterday, he was freed: Continue reading Whistleblower released after being held for 4 days in Bangkok airport

Investigation leads to retraction of breast cancer paper, second for one author

Journal of Biological Chemistry.coverThe authors of a Journal of Biological Chemistry paper on a breast cancer gene are withdrawing it following an investigation at Roswell Park Cancer Institute that found a figure contained “manipulated” data.

Last author Toru Ouchi is based at Roswell in the department of cancer genetics.

Second to last author Sam W. Lee, at Massachusetts General Hospital, lost a Molecular Cell paper in 2013 after some figures were “inappropriately manipulated.”

Here’s the withdrawal note from JBC (which, unusually — but happily so — includes some explanation of what’s wrong with the paper): Continue reading Investigation leads to retraction of breast cancer paper, second for one author

Court grants Toronto researchers review of misconduct findings

A Canadian court has granted a review of two researchers’ application to quash the findings of a university investigation that found signs of falsified data, according to the researchers’ lawyer.

Yesterday, the court ruled that the application by Sylvia Asa and her husband, Shereen Ezzat, to quash the University Health Network investigation’s findings be reviewed by a full panel of the divisional court.

That review should take place within the next few months, Brian Moher, the researchers’ attorney, told us. The pair are pleased with the outcome, Moher told Retraction Watch:

Continue reading Court grants Toronto researchers review of misconduct findings

Trachea surgeon Macchiarini acted “without due care,” but is not guilty of misconduct: Karolinska

Paolo Macchiarini
Paolo Macchiarini

Following an investigation, Karolinska Institutet has found that surgeon and visiting professor Paolo Macchiarini acted in some cases “without due care,” but that his behavior “does not qualify as scientific misconduct.”

Karolinska’s Vice Chancellor has also recommended that Macchiarini submit an unspecified number of corrections “to clarify and rectify the failings that the inquiry has brought to light.”

Macchiarini is most well-known for pioneering the creation of tracheas from cadavers and patients’ own stem cells. However, the glow of his success was diminished somewhat after four Karolinska surgeons filed a complaint, alleging Macchiarini had downplayed the risks of the procedure and not obtained proper consent, among other accusations.

An external review by Bengt Gerdin of Uppsala University concluded in May that Continue reading Trachea surgeon Macchiarini acted “without due care,” but is not guilty of misconduct: Karolinska

Yes, many psychology findings may be “too good to be true” – now what?

scienceToday, Science published the first results from a massive reproducibility project, in which more than 250 psychology researchers tried to replicate the results of 100 papers published in three psychology journals. Despite working with the original authors and using original materials, only 36% of the studies produced statistically significant results, and more than 80% of the studies reported a stronger effect size in the original study than in the replication. To the authors, however, this is not a sign of failure – rather, it tells us that science is working as it should:

Continue reading Yes, many psychology findings may be “too good to be true” – now what?

Journal that published bogus chocolate study delisted from open access directory

logo_croppedThe journal that recently published a bogus study showing the health benefits of chocolate has been kicked out of a membership organization for open access journals.

According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the International Archives of Medicine was removed from the list of member journals August 20, due to “suspected editorial misconduct by publisher.”

The journal is still was listed in PubMed until November 2014.

According to the DOAJ website, membership to the organization serves as a stamp of approval for OA journals:

Continue reading Journal that published bogus chocolate study delisted from open access directory

Following criticism, PLOS removes blog defending scrutiny of science

plos_logoCommunity blog PLOS Biologue has pulled a post by journalists Charles Seife and Paul Thacker that argued in favor of public scrutiny of scientists’ behavior (including emails), following heavy criticism, including from a group and scientist mentioned in the post.

Their reasoning: The post was “not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.”

The original post, published August 13, is no longer available online, but you can read it here. In the piece, Seife and Thacker lament what they call a recent backlash against transparency in science: Continue reading Following criticism, PLOS removes blog defending scrutiny of science

Judge dismisses defamation suit against diabetes journal

Mario Saad, via unicamp.br
Mario Saad, via unicamp.br

Mario Saad can’t catch a break — yesterday, a Massachusetts judge dismissed his defamation suit against the American Diabetes Association, publisher of Diabetes, which published an expression of concern regarding four of his papers in March.

The researcher has tried — and failed — to use the courts to remove the EoC.

In Saad’s latest attempt to employ legal action against the journal — arguing the EoC was defamatory — the United States District Court of Massachusetts was clear in its ruling (which you can view in its entirety here):

Continue reading Judge dismisses defamation suit against diabetes journal

64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

springerThis is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.

Given that there have been about 1,500 papers retracted overall since 2012, when we first reported on the phenomenon, faked reviews have been responsible for about 15% of all retractions in the past three years.

This isn’t the first time Springer has faced the issue. As owner of the BioMed Central journals, it issued 43 retractions for faked reviews earlier this year.

In a statement, the publisher explains how the latest round of retractions came to light: Continue reading 64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

8 things you might not know about research misconduct proceedings: Guest post

Callan Stein

Have you ever wondered what could happen if you’re accused of misconduct and face official proceedings? We are pleased to present a guest post from Callan Stein, a lawyer who represents U.S. researchers in misconduct cases, who describes some nuances many may not realize about these situations. 

Most researchers know that being accused of research misconduct is a very serious matter. When research misconduct allegations are made, institutions embark upon lengthy, multi-staged inquiry and investigation processes as required by federal law. The federal government’s Office of Research Integrity (“ORI”) – part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – oversees those institutional findings and imposes potentially career-threatening punishments on those found guilty. While researchers generally understand the basics of how a research misconduct case unfolds, many are unaware of the nuances that bear greatly on the outcome.  What follows are brief descriptions of eight such nuances of which every researcher should be aware.

  1. While “honest error” exempts researchers from misconduct, it is very hard to prove.

Continue reading 8 things you might not know about research misconduct proceedings: Guest post