Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: A peer reviewer goes on strike; why science should be more boring; publish or perish = less quality

The week at Retraction Watch featured an economist being asked to review his own paper, and a new member of our leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A peer reviewer goes on strike; why science should be more boring; publish or perish = less quality

New Jersey university biologist earns funding ban for doctoring more than 40 images

A researcher has agreed to a five-year ban on Federal U.S. funding for research after the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) determined that he had falsified or fabricated more than 40 images in nine papers.

The findings, released by the ORI today, are another chapter in a case involving John Pastorino, a cell biologist at Rowan University. In February, we reported that two journals had issued expressions of concern (EOCs) for six of his papers.

Pastorino, according to the ORI, Continue reading New Jersey university biologist earns funding ban for doctoring more than 40 images

Former Pitt postdoc admits to faking data

pitt A former postdoc at the University of Pittsburgh has admitted to committing research misconduct in published papers and in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications.

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) said on Friday that Kenneth Walker, who was studying the development of the urinary tract, Continue reading Former Pitt postdoc admits to faking data

Weekend reads: Another autism-vaccine fraud movie?; zombie papers; herbicide-cancer report taken down

The week at Retraction Watch featured an imposter editor and an author who threatened to sue a journal if it didn’t reverse a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Another autism-vaccine fraud movie?; zombie papers; herbicide-cancer report taken down

College retracts press release about sociologist reviewing manuscript

The Pennsylvania College of Technology, aka Penn College, has retracted a press release about a sociologist there reviewing a manuscript.

Now, although we’ve covered a few retracted press releases, we don’t typically write about such events. This one, however, struck us as odd: Is reviewing a paper really the bar for sending out a press release? What if every university did that every time one of their faculty was asked to review?

The May 2 press release, issued by Penn State, of which Penn College is a part, begins: Continue reading College retracts press release about sociologist reviewing manuscript

Weekend reads: Research parasite awards; money-back research guarantees; Sci-Hub takes over the world

This week at Retraction Watch featured a confession about research misconduct, and a debate over whether a paper should have been retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Research parasite awards; money-back research guarantees; Sci-Hub takes over the world

Why that Evolution paper should never have been retracted: A reviewer speaks out

Earlier this week, we covered the case of a retraction that happened against one of the author’s wishes. That’s not all that unusual. What was unusual in this story, however, is that the author who objected to the retraction had published a well-considered paper in which she identified an error in the original work, and corrected it. That led many scientists on Twitter and elsewhere to ask: Doesn’t a retraction send the wrong message? Don’t we want researchers to correct and update their work?

One of the people asking those questions was Ben Ashby, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter in the UK — who, it turns out, reviewed the corrective paper. Here, we present his thoughts: Continue reading Why that Evolution paper should never have been retracted: A reviewer speaks out