Author: Ivan Oransky

NEJM: No plan to clarify wording that led to allegations of breached confidentiality

NEJMThe New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has no plans to change the wording of an article that led to allegations of breached patient confidentiality and caused a minor social media firestorm this past weekend, the journal told Retraction Watch.

The paragraph in question appeared in an essay by Lisa Rosenbaum chronicling the history of power morcellation, a technique to remove gynecological organs that the FDA has subjected to a “black box warning” because it can also spread tumors: Continue reading NEJM: No plan to clarify wording that led to allegations of breached confidentiality

Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a heartfelt essay by John Ioannidis on what he called the hijacking of evidence-based medicine, as well as the story of a peer reviewer who stole text for his own paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

“Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked:” A confession from John Ioannidis

ioannidis
John Ioannidis

John Ioannidis is perhaps best known for a 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” One of the most highly cited researchers in the world, Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford, has built a career in the field of meta-research. Earlier this month, he published a heartfelt and provocative essay in the the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology titled “Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Report to David Sackett.” In it, he carries on a conversation begun in 2004 with Sackett, who died last May and was widely considered the father of evidence-based medicine. We asked Ioannidis to expand on his comments in the essay, including why he believes he is a “failure.”

Retraction Watch: You write that as evidence-based medicine “became more influential, it was also hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for.” Can you elaborate? Continue reading “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked:” A confession from John Ioannidis

Weekend reads: Science reporter fired; crappiest fraud ever; are journals necessary?

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a big new study of retractions, another that looked at scientist productivity over time, and a new statement on how to use p values properly. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Science reporter fired; crappiest fraud ever; are journals necessary?

Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint

thomson reutersThere’s a new paper about retractions, and it’s chock-full of the kind of data that we love to geek out on. Enjoy.

The new paper, “A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact,” appears on the preprint server arXiv — meaning it has yet to be peer-reviewed — and is co-authored by Xin Shuai and five other employees of Thomson Reuters. Highlights from their dataset: Continue reading Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint

Weekend reads: Replication debate heats up again; NEJM fooled?; how to boost your alt-metrics

booksThe week at Retraction Watch was dominated by the retraction of “the Creator” paper, but we also reported on a scientist under investigation losing a grant, and a case brewing at a New Jersey university. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Replication debate heats up again; NEJM fooled?; how to boost your alt-metrics

Weekend reads: Prof charged with $8 million research fraud; war on bullshit science; more Macchiarini fallout

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured seven retractions in a long-running case involving cancer research, as well as the retraction of a paper claiming a link between a vaccine and behavioral issues. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Prof charged with $8 million research fraud; war on bullshit science; more Macchiarini fallout

“That was a really bad Friday for us:” WIRED warns four stories were plagiarized

501px-Wired_logo.svgLast Friday, WIRED editor Adam Rogers got a direct message on Twitter that no journalist wants to see. Christina Larson, a freelance writer in China, told him she had seen overlap with her own work in a few WIRED stories, and included links to the relevant pieces.

“She was gracious, just asking for a link back in the future, said she loved WIRED,” Rogers told Retraction Watch by phone this afternoon. It was early morning in San Francisco, so Rogers thanked her for bringing the issue to his attention, and said he’d look at it more closely when he arrived at his desk some 45 minutes later.

It was the start of an episode that would lead to the dismissal of a WIRED reporter, and the addition of warning notes to four of the publication’s stories.
Continue reading “That was a really bad Friday for us:” WIRED warns four stories were plagiarized

Journal retracts 7 papers by MD Anderson cancer researcher long under investigation

aggarwal
Bharat Aggarwal

An MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who has been under investigation by the institution for at least several years has had seven papers retracted from a single journal.

Bharat Aggarwal told us in 2012 that MD Anderson was investigating his work, but in 2013 threatened to sue us for reporting on the case. Aggarwal is no longer listed in the MD Anderson directory, and an email to him there bounced.

This week, Biochemical Pharmacology retracted seven studies of which he is the only common author, noting the “data integrity has become questionable.” The papers have been cited a total of more than 500 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge; one has been designated as “highly cited.” Here are the seven retractions: Continue reading Journal retracts 7 papers by MD Anderson cancer researcher long under investigation

Weekend reads: Publish and perish in Texas; clinical trial reporting poor but improving; forget peer review

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured a peer review nightmare come true, and a look at why publishing negative findings is hard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Publish and perish in Texas; clinical trial reporting poor but improving; forget peer review