Author: Ivan Oransky

Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

anniversaryGentle readers: Since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.

Now, we’re hoping some of you will consider making a financial contribution. To continue to grow Retraction Watch, we will need resources. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!).

How will we use the money? Continue reading Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

Weekend reads: STAP stem cell controversy grinds on, plagiarism puzzles

booksAnother busy week here at Retraction Watch, with many in the scientific world glued to their browsers for more information on the latest stem cell controversy. Hear Ivan on the BBC discussing what that story means for post-publication peer review. Elsewhere around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: STAP stem cell controversy grinds on, plagiarism puzzles

Fight against false copyright claims goes to Capitol Hill

automattcRetraction Watch readers may recall that in November, we, along with Automattic, the company behind WordPress, filed a lawsuit against someone who filed a false copyright infringement claim about ten of our posts.

On a false pretense — copying and pasting the posts onto a website in India, then claiming that we had plagiarized that site — that person used a law known as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force WordPress to remove our posts. Here’s why WordPress had to do that, as Ars Technica had put it a few years earlier: Continue reading Fight against false copyright claims goes to Capitol Hill

Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review

Ivan-OranskyIvan is scheduled to be on Inside Science on BBC Radio 4 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern (1630 UK time) to discuss the latest stem cell controversy, and what it says about the state of post-publication peer review. Continue reading Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review

In sharp resignation letter, former ORI director Wright criticizes bureaucracy, dysfunction

David Wright, via ORI
David Wright, via ORI

Last week, we reported that David Wright had resigned as director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). At the time, we noted we were short on details, but  Science has obtained Wright’s resignation letter, which sheds a great deal of light on the move.

In his letter, according to Science, Wright wrote that: Continue reading In sharp resignation letter, former ORI director Wright criticizes bureaucracy, dysfunction

So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?

Paul Brookes, via URMC
Paul Brookes, via URMC

Retraction Watch readers will likely be familiar with the story of Paul Brookes, the University of Rochester researcher whose identity as the person behind Science-Fraud.org was revealed in January 2013. That revelation — and legal threats — forced Brookes to shutter Science-Fraud.org.

In a new illuminating interview in Science, Brookes discusses the legal threats he faced, how they curtailed his travel, and how his university responded, among other subjects.

The risks faced by whistleblowers are a constant thread on Retraction Watch. So did the site have an effect on his ability to do science? Continue reading So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?

Chronic fatigue syndrome researcher Mikovits, who championed link to XMRV, to publish book

mikovits coverJudy Mikovits, the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) researcher who had a paper linking the condition to XMRV retracted, has co-authored a book that’s coming out on May 6.

In an announcement on Age of Autism, co-author Kent Heckenlively gives a taste of what readers might find in the book, titled PLAGUE – One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Retroviruses, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Autism, and Other Diseases: Continue reading Chronic fatigue syndrome researcher Mikovits, who championed link to XMRV, to publish book

Not-so-tiny ethics issues as Micron retracts first-ever paper, and authors apologize for five duplicates

micronThe editors of the journal Micron — an Elsevier title — have retracted its first paper ever, and in an editorial marking the occasion, take on a number of issues in scientific publishing misconduct.

The beginning of the editorial (which is paywalled): Continue reading Not-so-tiny ethics issues as Micron retracts first-ever paper, and authors apologize for five duplicates

Co-author of controversial acid STAP stem cell papers in Nature requests retraction: report

nature 2-27-14A co-author of two papers claiming to have shown how to create stem cells simply and easily has requested their retraction, the Wall Street Journal is reporting: Continue reading Co-author of controversial acid STAP stem cell papers in Nature requests retraction: report

Following criticism, PLOS apologizes, clarifies new data policy

plosIn response to “an extraordinary outpouring of discussions on open data and its place in scientific publishing” following a February 24 announcement about a new data policy at PLOS, the publisher has apologized and corrected the record.

The new policy — which was actually first announced on January 23, as we noted here — had led to criticism at the DrugMonkey blog, and a February 26 clarification seemed to do little to convince another critic. (Not all disagreed with the policy, however.)

In particular, there were objections to a section that began with Continue reading Following criticism, PLOS apologizes, clarifies new data policy