Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: Nature’s torrent of retractions, peer review’s Golden Rule

Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Nature’s torrent of retractions, peer review’s Golden Rule

Authors retract PNAS brain genetics paper for statistical issues

The authors of a paper on brain genetics published online in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) are retracting it for “a potential confound relating to statistical inference.”

Here’s the notice for “Identification of gene ontologies linked to prefrontal–hippocampal functional coupling in the human brain:” Continue reading Authors retract PNAS brain genetics paper for statistical issues

White House takes notice of reproducibility in science, and wants your opinion

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is taking a look at innovation and scientific research, and issues of reproducibility have made it onto its radar.

Here’s the description of the project from the Federal Register: Continue reading White House takes notice of reproducibility in science, and wants your opinion

PubPeer Selections: Boosting memory in Science, extending lifespan in Nature, quantum anesthesia in PNAS

As Retraction Watch readers probably know, we’re big fans of PubPeer, the post-publication peer review site that allows comments on papers. Discussions there have led to a number of corrections and retractions, and even more importantly, authors are starting to respond to clarify results, acknowledge errors, or otherwise advance knowledge. After all, as we often note, there’s a long way between raising questions about a study and retracting it.

With all of that in mind, we’re pleased to launch a new weekly post that will be called “PubPeer Selections” in which we’ll highlight featured discussions on PubPeer. Here’s the first installment: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: Boosting memory in Science, extending lifespan in Nature, quantum anesthesia in PNAS

Diabetes researcher Cory Toth now up to nine retractions

Cory Toth is up to nine retractions.

The University of Calgary researcher who told us earlier this year that he “will not be publishing in the world of science in the future” has retracted two papers from Neuroscience.

Here’s the notice for “Local erythropoietin signaling enhances regeneration in peripheral axons:” Continue reading Diabetes researcher Cory Toth now up to nine retractions

Danish committee rejects much of Klarlund Pedersen’s appeal of misconduct findings

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD, Danish acronym UVVU) has partially reversed a December 2013 finding of misconduct against a scientist in Denmark, but has upheld most of its ruling.

Bente Klarlund Pedersen, whose case was tied up with that of Milena Penkowa, another scientist in Denmark found guilty of misconduct, committed misconduct in four of 12 articles examined, not six, the DCSD said in a statement last week.

Here’s the English summary (the DCSD does not name scientists under investigation publicly, but Pedersen has confirmed this is about her): Continue reading Danish committee rejects much of Klarlund Pedersen’s appeal of misconduct findings

Weekend reads: DIY peer review, wildly exaggerated breakthroughs, and how to commit fraud without being caught

Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: DIY peer review, wildly exaggerated breakthroughs, and how to commit fraud without being caught

Australian university to repay $275K grant because of “misleading and incorrect” information

Courtesy of The Australian, we have an update on a story we first covered in late 2012.

As we reported then:

A contested retraction in Stem Cells and Development has left the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) graduate student who fought for it in limbo, uncertain if he will earn his PhD. And many of those who didn’t want the paper retracted have a significant financial interest in a company whose work was promoted by the research — despite any lack of disclosure in the now-retracted paper.

QUT refused to give the student, Luke Cormack, access to an evaluation of the data in question, but also said that it welcomed an independent probe into a related $275,000 grant.

That probe is now complete, reports The Australian’s Julie Hare, and the QUT will be paying the grant back: Continue reading Australian university to repay $275K grant because of “misleading and incorrect” information