As Retraction Watch readers know, criminal sanctions for research fraud are extremely rare. There have been just a handful of cases — Dong-Pyou Han, Eric Poehlman, and Scott Reuben, to name several — that have led to prison sentences.
According to a new study, however, the rarity of such cases is out of sync with with the wishes of the U.S. population:
Continue reading Vast majority of Americans want to criminalize data fraud, says new study
The week at Retraction Watch featured a puzzle, and the retraction of a controversial study on fracking. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Unscientific peer review; impact factor revolt; men love to cite themselves
The week at Retraction Watch featured an unwitting co-author and a painful example of doing the right thing. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Publisher under fire; Canadian scientists demand change; a troubled psychiatry trial
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of fraud in more than $100 million in government research, and swift findings in a much-discussed case. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Naughty journals; whistleblowers’ frustration; new misconduct definition?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the corrections of papers claiming that conservative beliefs were linked to psychotic traits, and a new member of our leaderboard, from philosophy. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Idiotic reviews; wrong metrics in China; questions about preprints
This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: How to prove (and find) false claims; confessions of a wasteful scientist
Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that appeared this week. We’re posting them in case you missed them. Thanks for reading! Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more
A week after announcing that a researcher formerly at the University of Chicago had faked the results of more than 70 experiments, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity announced yesterday that one of his colleagues also falsified data.
According to the ORI, Karen D’Souza Continue reading Fraudster’s colleague faked data, too
The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Improper influence by NFL; dissertations for sale; how common is failure to reproduce?