PubPeer won a near-complete victory in a court case last week. Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: Feedback within a day; “worst examples of data;” endocrinology papers questioned
Author: Ivan Oransky
Do fraudsters deserve a second chance?
In January, we were accused of bullying.
We were writing about a researcher who had 16 papers retracted for fake peer reviews; when we found out he was trying to find a new job in academia, we posted a follow-up that linked to his CV. Some commenters called the post “bullying,” “unethical,” and “over the line.” Not everyone agreed, but the back-and-forth prompted us to think about when such follow-ups were appropriate, and whether scientists who’ve committed fraud deserve a second chance. Continue reading Do fraudsters deserve a second chance?
Weekend reads: Reviewer comments unmasked, the problem with top journal editors, originality an illusion?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a number of legal cases by scientists trying to suppress criticism about their work. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Reviewer comments unmasked, the problem with top journal editors, originality an illusion?
Researcher loses second bid to quash Diabetes expressions of concern
It hasn’t been a good week for scientists going to court to silence criticism of their work.
Yesterday, PubPeer won a near-complete victory in a case seeking the identities of their commenters. And also yesterday, a Massachusetts judge struck down — for the second time — a request by Mario Saad to remove expressions of concern about four of his papers in Diabetes.
In his ruling, Judge Timothy Hillman wrote: Continue reading Researcher loses second bid to quash Diabetes expressions of concern
Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study
Marc Hauser. Dirk Smeesters. Diederik Stapel.
Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in Psychologische Rundschau and titled “Zur Lage der Psychologie.”
That increase, Margraf found, is not entirely due to its most well-known fraudsters. Here’s the relevant figure:
Continue reading Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study
Diabetes researcher won’t give up court fight to quash expressions of concern
Apparently, you can’t keep Mario Saad down.
The researcher, who had 12 figures in a paper corrected this week, was dealt a setback last week when a judge denied his motion to remove expressions of concern on four of his papers in the journal Diabetes, saying that would have amounted to prior restraint — essentially, censorship (a no-no, thanks to the First Amendment).
Saad and his attorneys, however, were undeterred. They filed a motion for reconsideration just four days later, along with a brief, arguing: Continue reading Diabetes researcher won’t give up court fight to quash expressions of concern
Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly
This week at Retraction Watch featured a change of heart by a journal, and a look at Nature’s addition of double-blind peer review. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly
PubPeer Selections: Odd citations, “practice makes perfect,” a Nature update
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: Odd citations, “practice makes perfect,” a Nature update
Prominent geneticist David Latchman’s group notches second retraction
A team of researchers whose work is under investigation by University College London has retracted a second paper.
Three of the 11 authors of the 2005 Journal of Cell Science paper being retracted — David Latchman, Richard Knight, and Anastasis Stephanou — were authors of a Journal of Biological Chemistry paper retracted in January. Stephanou takes the blame for the “errors” which felled the Journal of Cell Science paper, about how a tumor suppressor responds to DNA damage.
Here’s the notice for “STAT-1 facilitates the ATM activated checkpoint pathway following DNA damage:” Continue reading Prominent geneticist David Latchman’s group notches second retraction
Are retractions more frequent in stem cell research?
There are a number of fields that seem to punch above their weight on Retraction Watch: Anesthesiology, home to the world record holder (and runner-up), and psychology, home to Diederik Stapel and others. But the red-hot field of stem cell research is another that makes frequent appearances, last year’s STAP controversy being particularly prominent.
There’s an interesting (but unfortunately paywalled) recent paper in Science and Engineering Ethics, “The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication,” by Cheryl Lancaster, a small part of which tries to answer that question.
Lancaster applies the same methods Fang, Steen, and Casadevall used to broadly measure the causes of retractions in all life science and biomedicine to the specific field of stem cell research: Continue reading Are retractions more frequent in stem cell research?