The week at Retraction Watch featured a primer on research misconduct proceedings, and some developments in the case of Joachim Boldt, who is now second on our leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Top science excuses; how figures can mislead; a strange disclosure
Author: Ivan Oransky
Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever
This week, we marked the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch with the announcement of a generous new grant. We also covered the retraction of a slew of papers in a journal plagued by problems. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever
At least one-third of top science journals lack a retraction policy — a big improvement
More than one third — 35% — of the world’s top-ranked science journals that responded to a survey don’t have a retraction policy, according to a new study. And that’s a dramatic improvement over findings of a similar study a little more than a decade ago.
For the new paper, “Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor,” David Resnik, Grace Kissling, and Elizabeth Wager (a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization) surveyed 200 science journals with the highest impact factors about their retraction policies. About three-quarters provided the information: Continue reading At least one-third of top science journals lack a retraction policy — a big improvement
New $300,000 grant marks the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch
Five years ago today, we wrote our first post, “Why write a blog about retractions?” And although every year since has been terrific, this year we have the most to celebrate so far. Here are some highlights: Continue reading New $300,000 grant marks the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch
Weekend reads: What really happened in that lab?; best excuses for falsifying data and rejecting grants
The week at Retraction Watch featured the correction of a widely covered study claiming to find evidence of the plague and anthrax on New York City subways, and rulings against scientists suing Harvard, a journal, and the CBC. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: What really happened in that lab?; best excuses for falsifying data and rejecting grants
Weekend reads: Fame bias at journals; retractions as good news; hoarding data as bad news
This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a widely covered paper on marriage and illness, and the resignation of a high-profile lab head in Toronto. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Fame bias at journals; retractions as good news; hoarding data as bad news
HIV vaccine researcher who confessed to fraud files appeal of 57-month prison sentence
Dong-Pyou Han, who was sentenced earlier this month to nearly five years in prison for faking the results of HIV vaccine experiments, has appealed the decision.
According to Report on Research Compliance, which first reported the news, the appeal was filed on July 15. In addition to the prison sentence, Han had been ordered on July 1 to repay more than $7 million to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and to serve three years of supervised release following his prison term.
Former ORI director David Wright told Report on Research Compliance (paywalled) that Continue reading HIV vaccine researcher who confessed to fraud files appeal of 57-month prison sentence
Weekend reads: How to publish in Nature; social media circumvents peer review; impatience leads to fakery
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at why a fraudster’s papers continued to earn citations after he went to prison, and criticism of Science by hundreds of researchers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: How to publish in Nature; social media circumvents peer review; impatience leads to fakery
Weekend reads: California universities battle in court for research dollars; fake conferences; fake impact factors
This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the nuances of replication efforts, aka “the replication paradox,” as well as yet another story of fake peer reviews, this time at Hindawi. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: California universities battle in court for research dollars; fake conferences; fake impact factors
30+ papers flagged because editors may have “subverted the peer review process” with fake accounts
In what has become a familiar story, another publisher has found more than 30 papers that appear to have been accepted and published based on fake peer reviews.
Hindawi, publisher of more than 400 journals, is having 32 papers re-reviewed after an investigation
…identified three Editors who appear to have subverted the peer review process by creating fraudulent reviewer accounts and using these accounts to submit favorable review reports.
The publisher launched its investigation following BioMed Central’s November announcement that they had found at least 50 papers accepted because of fake reviews. That announcement came days after we published a feature in Nature on the phenomenon. BMC eventually retracted 43 articles.
As Hindawi notes in a statement posted to its site today: Continue reading 30+ papers flagged because editors may have “subverted the peer review process” with fake accounts