This week’s Weekend Reads, which appears below, was preempted yesterday by the news that the Office of Research Integrity had issued a finding of misconduct in the long-running case of Anil Potti. The week also featured news about a child psychiatry trial halted for unexplained reasons, and saw the launch of our new weekly column at STAT, a new life sciences site from Boston Globe Media. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Elsevier mutiny; babies as co-authors; what to do after rejection
Author: Ivan Oransky
It’s official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds
Following five years of scrutiny, more than ten retractions, multiple settled lawsuits, and medical board reprimands, we may finally have some resolution on the case of Anil Potti, the once-rising cancer research star who resigned from Duke in 2010.
While there have been numerous allegations of misconduct in Potti’s work, and strong comments to that effect by Potti’s former mentor, Joseph Nevins, there has been no official finding. Today, that changes. Potti “engaged in research misconduct,” the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concludes in a report to be published in the Federal Register on Monday.
Potti — referred to as “respondent” in the report — included “false research data” in reports of research from six different NIH grants, according to the ORI: Continue reading It’s official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds
Weekend reads: Psychology stats errors abound; font choice dooms grant application
This week at Retraction Watch featured high-profile retractions from Nature and the BMJ. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Psychology stats errors abound; font choice dooms grant application
Weekend reads, part 2: Pressure to publish limits innovation; Frontiers a predatory publisher?
Lots of good reads elsewhere this week. As promised yesterday, here’s part 2: Continue reading Weekend reads, part 2: Pressure to publish limits innovation; Frontiers a predatory publisher?
Weekend reads, part 1: Pirating paywalled papers; a sex scandal and fudged data at Stanford
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lot of movement on our leaderboard, with a new total for Diederik Stapel, and a new entry. It also featured a lot going on elsewhere, so here’s part I of Weekend Reads (we’ll have more tomorrow morning): Continue reading Weekend reads, part 1: Pirating paywalled papers; a sex scandal and fudged data at Stanford
Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong
This week at Retraction Watch featured nine more fake peer review retractions, this time from Elsevier, and an update to the retraction count for one-time record holder Joachim Boldt. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong
Elsevier retracting nine papers for fake peer review
The fake peer review retraction count continues to mount.
Elsevier is retracting nine papers from five journals because fake email addresses for reviewers were provided during submission of the original manuscripts. According to a statement from the publisher: Continue reading Elsevier retracting nine papers for fake peer review
Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates
The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates
Weekend reads, part 2: Criminalizing scientific fraud; Nobel Prize folly; boosting impact factor
There were so many items to choose from this week for Weekend Reads — probably because it was Peer Review Week — that we decided to split them into two posts. Here’s part 2: Continue reading Weekend reads, part 2: Criminalizing scientific fraud; Nobel Prize folly; boosting impact factor
Weekend reads, part 1: Editor slams PubPeer; scientific fraud pays off
The week at Retraction Watch featured yet another case of fake peer review, and a court sentence for a Danish researcher found to have committed fraud. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow): Continue reading Weekend reads, part 1: Editor slams PubPeer; scientific fraud pays off