Author: Ivan Oransky

Publisher to pulp existing copies of science communication book because of plagiarism

speight bookThe publisher Taylor & Francis has decided to pulp all existing copies of a 2012 book on science communication, and suspend electronic copies indefinitely, after it became clear that the text was plagiarized from the work of another author.

The book, Clear and Concise Communications for Scientists and Engineers, was written by energy and environmental consultant James G. Speight. According to Colin Purrington — the creator of a very popular poster tips site whose past attempts to protect his intellectual property may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers — pages 166-169 are “largely copied” from Purrington’s page on scientific poster design.

In a letter to Taylor & Francis, Purrington wrote:

Continue reading Publisher to pulp existing copies of science communication book because of plagiarism

How common is scientific misconduct in Nigeria?

nigeriaWe’ve only covered one retraction from Nigeria. But as we’ve often noted, retraction rates don’t necessarily correlate with rates of problematic research, so the low number doesn’t really answer the question in this post’s title.

Lucky for us, a group of authors have started publishing surveys of Nigerian scientists on the subject. In a new such survey published in BMC Medical Ethics, Patrick I. Okonta and Theresa Rossouw asked 150 researchers to fill out a questionnaire during a scientific conference in 2010. Most of them — 133 — complied. Their findings? Continue reading How common is scientific misconduct in Nigeria?

Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper

neuronA new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal.

The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Richard Haier and colleagues write in Intelligence that Continue reading Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper

Nature corrects a correction

nature 4 9 14Last year, we reported on a Nature correction of a paper for what a McGill University committee had earlier called “intentionally contrived and falsified” figures. It turns out that the correction — like the original paper — left some Nature readers puzzled, so the journal has run a correction of the correction: Continue reading Nature corrects a correction

Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

booksAnother super-busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening in around the web in scientific publishing, misconduct, and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Problems with a Science paper, how to cite properly (and improperly)

“[W]e did not succeed:” Frontiers editor on handling of controversial retraction

frontiersControversy continues to swirl around the retraction of a Frontiers paper linking climate skepticism to conspiratorial ideation, with three editors resigning from various Frontiers journals, and competing narratives. The authors say the journal retracted the paper because of a fear of legal threats, while the journal, and critics of the study, has said it was withdrawn because the paper did not protect the rights of its subjects.

Whatever the issues with the paper, we and others have been saying that the journal stumbled since the study was first retracted last year. The publisher continues to insist, for example, that there is no contradiction between their retraction notice — agreed upon by the editors and the authors — which said that the journal “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study” and a later statement saying that the paper “did not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects.”

Today, editor-in-chief Henry Markham acknowledged missteps in a blog post. Here’s how it starts:

Continue reading “[W]e did not succeed:” Frontiers editor on handling of controversial retraction

Harvard-Brigham heart researcher under investigation earns Lancet Expression of Concern

logo_lancetOn Tuesday, we broke the news of the retraction in Circulation of a paper on cardiac stem cells by a group of researchers being investigated by Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Today, The Lancet has issued an Expression of Concern about another paper led by Piero Anversa, the last author of the Circulation paper.

Continue reading Harvard-Brigham heart researcher under investigation earns Lancet Expression of Concern

Following “personal attacks and threats,” Elsevier plant journal makes author persona non grata

Scientia HorticulturaeAn Elsevier journal has taken “the exceptional step of ceasing to communicate” with a scientist-critic after a series of “unfounded personal attacks and threats.” The move means that the journal, Scientia Horticulturae, will not review any papers that include the critic, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, as an author.

Here is the text of the letter (pdf here, obtained from an anonymous source), signed by Gert Jan-Geraeds:

Continue reading Following “personal attacks and threats,” Elsevier plant journal makes author persona non grata

Retraction four appears for Dirk Smeesters

smeestersDirk Smeesters, the former psychology professor at Erasmus University found to have committed misconduct, has had another paper retracted.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Retraction four appears for Dirk Smeesters

Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction

frontiersAn editor at a Frontiers journal has resigned to protest the publisher’s decision to retract the controversial “Recursive Fury” paper that linked climate skepticism to conspiratorial ideation.

Ugo Bardi was chief specialty editor of Frontiers in Energy Research: Energy Systems and Policy. He writes on his blog:

…my opinion is that, with their latest statement and their decision to retract the paper, Frontiers has shown no respect for authors nor for their own appointed referees and editors. But the main problem is that we have here another example of the climate of intimidation that is developing around the climate issue.

Continue reading Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction