PubPeer founders reveal themselves, create foundation

pubpeer

The creators of PubPeer dropped their own anonymity today, as part of an announcement about a new chapter in the life of the post-publication peer review site.

By now, Retraction Watch readers will be familiar with PubPeer.com. Founded in 2012, the commenting site has allowed for robust discussions of scientific papers — which in turn have led to corrections and retractions. (We regularly feature discussions there in our PubPeer Selections feature.) The site has many supporters — including us — but also some critics, one of whom has filed suit against its commenters, arguing anonymous comments cost him a job opportunity. (Late last week, PubPeer learned that a judge had granted them the right to appeal the most recent decision in that case.)

Like most of the commenters on the site, whose careers could be threatened if they were exposed as critics, the founders of the site have until now been anonymous.

Today, however, founders Brandon Stell, George Smith, and Richard Smith unmasked themselves. They are joined on a board of directors by Boris Barbour and Gabor Brasnjo. Stell and Barbour are practicing scientists, while Brasnjo, who trained as a scientist, works as an attorney. Here’s the whole statement, followed by a Q&A with Stell: Continue reading PubPeer founders reveal themselves, create foundation

Weekend reads: Ghost authors proliferate; science goes to the movies; pricey grant fraud

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured the results of a massive replication study, yet another retraction for Diederik Stapel, and a messy situation at PLOS. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Ghost authors proliferate; science goes to the movies; pricey grant fraud

Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250

sage-journals-logoOn Monday, we reported on 64 new retractions from Springer journals resulting from fake peer reviews. Yesterday, SAGE — which retracted 60 papers for the same reason just over a year ago — added 17 additional retractions to their list.

The articles were published in five different journals, and one retraction involved authorship fraud in addition to peer review fraud, according to a SAGE spokesperson: Continue reading 17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250

Weekend reads: Top science excuses; how figures can mislead; a strange disclosure

booksThe 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

Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever

booksThis 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

jmlaMore 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

logoFive 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

booksThe 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

booksThis 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