A second Nature paper co-authored by Pankaj Dhonukshe, formerly of Utrecht University and VIB Ghent, has been retracted.
Here’s the notice for “Generation of cell polarity in plants links endocytosis, auxin distribution and cell fate decisions:” Continue reading Second Nature paper by researcher found to have violated academic integrity retracted
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with a lot of media attention to a story about 60 retractions at a single journal for peer review fraud, and our op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Peer review unreliable? Merck retracts legal threats over criticism
As Retraction Watch readers know, it’s very rare for a scientist to face criminal charges for fraud, and it’s also very rare for the National Institutes of Health to recoup grants found to have involved misconduct. Both have happened in the case of Dong-Pyou Han, the former Iowa State University researcher who spiked rabbit blood samples with human antibodies to make it look as if an HIV vaccine was working.
We used that case as the basis of an op-ed that appears in today’s New York Times, arguing that it’s time to “crack down on scientific fraudsters.” Have a look.
Speaking of the Times, we’re also on page A3 of the paper version, in a story titled “Science Journal Pulls 60 Papers in Peer-Review Fraud,” which picked up the SAGE scandal we broke the other day. A number of other outlets have also followed up on that story, with many of them kind enough to cite and quote us. Here are several: Continue reading “Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters” — our op-ed in today’s New York Times
This one deserves a “w
ow.”
SAGE Publishers is retracting 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a “peer review and citation ring” involving a professor in Taiwan.
[Please see an update on this post.]
Here’s the beginning of a statement from SAGE: Continue reading SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted
There has been another development in the case of Dong-Pyou Han, the former Iowa State University (ISU) researcher who admitted last fall to spiking rabbit blood samples to make it look as though his team’s HIV vaccine was working in the animals.
The Des Moines Register reports: Continue reading University where researcher faked HIV vaccine findings won’t receive last $1.4 million of grant
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with developments in two closely watched cases at Nature and PNAS. Here’s what was happening around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Fallout from STAP stem cell retractions, confessed HIV vaccine fraudster pleads not guilty
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is subjecting a much-criticized study involving Facebook that it published just two weeks ago to an Expression of Concern.
From the abstract of the original study: Continue reading Rapid mood swing: PNAS issues Expression of Concern for controversial Facebook study
A significant chapter of the nearly six-month saga of the STAP stem cell controversy has come to an end, with Nature running retraction notices for the two papers involved. The journal has also published an editorial about the case that’s worth a read.
The retractions for “Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency” and “Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency” both read: Continue reading STAP stem cell papers officially retracted as Nature argues peer review couldn’t have detected fatal problems
Benjamin Barré, a genetics researcher who recently set up his own group at the University of Angers, is retracting four papers he worked on as a graduate student and postdoc.
Neil Perkins, in whose lab Barré was a postdoc, and Olivier Coqueret, in whose lab he did his PhD, tell Retraction Watch: Continue reading Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”
Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that we often cover retractions long before they appear in PubMed, the gold standard database for the life sciences literature. (In fact, we’ve taken to leaving comments on papers in PubMed Commons about retractions that haven’t been linked to their original abstracts yet.)
This can be an issue, because so many scientists use PubMed to find relevant literature. It may even contribute to the well-documented phenomenon of researchers citing retracted papers as if they hadn’t been retracted.
Until now, no one had quantified the time lag. In a new study, Evelynne Decullier, Laure Huot, and Hervé Maisonneuve — who have published on retractions before — looked at 237 retractions published in 2008. Their findings? Continue reading Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study