International Studies Quarterly, a Wiley title, is retracting a paper because — oops! — it published the same article twice, unbeknownst to the authors.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Double taxation: Journal retracts paper it published twice
Author: Ivan Oransky
Erratum appears for Ulrich Lichtenthaler, who has 13 retractions
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor who has had 13 papers retracted, has a correction in the Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Here’s the text of the correction for “The Role of Champions in the External Commercialization of Knowledge, ” which is followed by the corrected tables: Continue reading Erratum appears for Ulrich Lichtenthaler, who has 13 retractions
Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions
We — and others — have been scratching our heads about the real reasons for the formal retraction on March 21 of a Frontiers in Psychology paper since the journal issued a statement on the subject on Friday that seemed to contradict the retraction notice and that certainly differed from accounts on some blogs. Today, we learned a few more details about what happened in the year between when the paper was provisionally removed and then formally retracted from a post by Stephan Lewandowsky, one of the co-authors of the paper.
The March 21 statement, writes Lewandowsky, Continue reading Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions
Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?
Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not “cave into threats”
Frontiers in Psychology, which last month formally retracted a controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiracy ideation, says it did not cave in to threats from skeptics, contrary to what a lot of news reports and commentary implied or claimed.
For example, summarizing a number of those reports this morning, before Frontiers had issued its statement, co-author Stephan Lewandowsky wrote on his blog:
By and large, the mainstream media coverage seems to have picked up on what’s really at issue here, namely academic freedom and editorial intimidation by a small band of vociferous individuals.
Here’s the statement, in which Frontiers stresses the rights of the people Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote about:
MS paper second to fall following University of Queensland investigation
Two former University of Queensland researchers have lost another paper following an investigation into their work.
In September, the university announced that a paper in the European Journal of Neurology by Bruce Murdoch and Caroline Barwood would be retracted because
no primary data can be located, and no evidence has been found that the study described in the article was conducted.
The university continued its investigation, and announced today that: Continue reading MS paper second to fall following University of Queensland investigation
Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?
As Retraction Watch readers will likely recall, Paul Brookes ran Science-Fraud.org anonymously until early 2013, when he was outed and faced legal threats that forced him to shut down the site. There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the experience, some of which Brookes discussed with Science last month.
Today, PeerJ published Brookes’ analysis of the response to critiques on Science-Fraud.org. It’s a compelling examination that suggests public scrutiny of the kind found on the site — often harsh, but always based solidly on evidence — is linked to more corrections and retractions in the literature.
Brookes looked at
497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized.
His results?
Continue reading Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?
Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das manages to revise and publish paper from the grave
Follow this timeline, if you would:
- August 14, 2013: Former UConn researcher Dipak Das, who was found to have committed misconduct, submits a paper to Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
- September 19, 2013: Das dies.
- October 17, 2013: Das submits revisions to his paper in Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
- October 18, 2013: Paper accepted.
- January 12, 2014: Paper published.
That would appear to be what the timeline on the paper — which lists Das as corresponding author, along with a Gmail address — says:
Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers
A complicated story involving Novartis’s valsartan (Diovan) has led to the retraction of two more papers, one cascading from the other.
Last September, The Lancet retracted the Jikei Heart Study after a slew of retractions of related work prompted an investigation of valsartan research. That investigation found evidence of data manipulation and the failure of one researcher to note his Novartis affiliation. The company has apologized.
Here’s one retraction, from Diabetes Care, for “The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) Group. Reduction of Microalbuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART):”
Continue reading Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers
Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do
A new site, Stand Up 2 Science Bullies, launched last week:
www.standup2sciencebullies.com is a forum for scientists to share their experience and provide advice pertaining to scientific bullying. We welcome questions and comments from all scientists including students, faculty, and members of industry. We sincerely hope that this forum will serve as an informative resource for scientists who feel that they are being treated unfairly by other scientists.
Continue reading Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do