Sometimes, authors and journals editors seem to think a bit of mystery is a good thing. Take a recent retraction in Brain.
Here’s the notice for “Selective impairment of hand mental rotation in patients with focal hand dystonia:” Continue reading “Ambiguities in the presentation of some of the data” lead to an ambiguous retraction notice
Nitin Aggarwal, formerly of the Medical College of Wisconsin, faked data in his PhD thesis, grant applications to the NIH and American Heart Association, and in two papers, according to new findings by the Office of Research Integrity.
(The case would have apparently first been published in the Federal Register on October 2, except for the government shutdown.)
Here were their findings: Continue reading Cardiology researcher faked data in his prizewinning PhD thesis — and NIH, AHA grants: ORI
Alirio Melendez, who was found guilty of scientific misconduct by the National University of Singapore and has had 13 papers retracted, says none of what he’s being accused of is true.
In a statement posted yesterday at ajmelendez.co.uk and this morning at Retraction Watch, Melendez acknowledges that fraud occurred in his laboratory, but “categorically” denies having taken part in it. Here’s the full statement: Continue reading Alirio Melendez categorically denies data falsification, alleges cover-up
The temporary withdrawal of a Molecular Plant paper had us scratching our heads, but the issue seems to be explained by a glitch.
If you click on this version of “Application of the CRISPR–Cas System for Efficient Genome Engineering in Plants” (subscription required), you see this:
This paper has been withdrawn pending a decision by the Editorial Board
But that page also says that the latest version of the paper was published on October 3. Clicking on that version sends you to the paper, which begins: Continue reading Plant journal withdraws paper — or does it?
Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:
I reviewed an article for two different journals that presented data from a large non-public data set. A previous publication from the same group had presented findings on the same topic from the dataset, but the new paper didn’t mention these previous analyses. The new paper had more detailed analyses. As a reviewer, both times I said that they really needed to mention that there were previous analyses of the same topic from the same dataset and say what their new analysis was contributing (not much!). Both times they basically refused and it got rejected. Then it got published in another journal (I didn’t review it this time) still without citing the previous analyses from the same data set.
Take our poll, and comment below. Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: What’s a reviewer to do?
Milena Penkowa, the Danish neuroscientist who has had four papers retracted and was found to have committed misconduct, is in the news again, this time for speaking at a museum exhibition by a Scientology-founded group.
Titled ““Psykiatri – Dödens industri“ — “Psychiatry, Industry of Death” — the exhibition is at the museum of the Commission on Human Rights, which, according to a press release,
was established in 1969 in the United States of the Church of Scientology and psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz, the world’s most famous psychiatry critics, and in 1972 in Sweden, to investigate and expose abuses of human rights in mental health care and to clean up the field of mental healing.
As the Swedish Dagens Medicin newspaper reported (via Google Translate): Continue reading Danish neuroscientist Penkowa, found guilty of misconduct, reappears as Scientology group headliner
We’ve sometimes said, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, that pre-publication peer review is the worst way to vet science, except for all the other ways that have been tried from time to time.
The authors of a new paper in PLOS Biology, Adam Eyre-Walker and Nina Stoletzki, compared three of those other ways to judge more than 6,500 papers published in 2005:
subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published
Their findings? Continue reading Is impact factor the “least-bad” way to judge the quality of a scientific paper?
We tend to stick to retractions in the peer-reviewed literature here at Retraction Watch, although we’ve made exceptions. Today’s post seemed like a good reason to make another exception, because while Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal, the science blogosphere and Twitter are lighting up this weekend with strong reactions to the magazine’s removal of a blog post by biologist Danielle Lee.
The incident was first noted by Dr. Rubidium, who wrote yesterday:
Scientist and science communicator @DNLee5 declined an offer to blog for free from biology-online.org and got called a ‘whore’. @DNLee5 posted a thoughtful response on her Scientific American‘s blog ’The Urban Scientist‘. A short time later, her response vanished…
(You can read Lee’s original post on Dr. Isis’s blog.)
Yesterday morning, Scientific American editor-in-chief Mariette DiChristina responded on Twitter: Continue reading Scientific American faces firestorm after removing blog post about scientist being called a whore
On Wednesday, we brought you the story of a retraction by Gerold Feuer, a State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical Center stem cell scientist whom the university had found to have misused grants. He was suspended, but successfully fought that action. We had asked Feuer for comment at that time, and he has now responded:
SUNY Upstate Medical University’s decision to widely publicize the recent decision by the journal Stem Cells to retract an article from my laboratory is a vindictive and retaliatory campaign to defame my scientific credentials in the press and to my scientific colleagues.
I unequivocally state that the data in all published manuscripts is valid and sound and is not falsified or fabricated. SUNY UMU unilaterally requested a retraction from Stem Cells, despite the fact that the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has not yet ruled on these allegations. It is not surprising that UMU has decided to publicize this retraction in a public forum as a second attempt to force me from my tenured faculty position and circumvent decision of the employment arbitrator and the New York Supreme Court.
To date SUNY UMU has refused to abide by the arbitrator’s “binding” decision to reinstate my faculty position and has failed to pay proper back-wages. The arbitrator evaluated operations of my spin-off company, Humurine Technologies, and stated: Continue reading Stem cell scientist says data in retracted paper “is not falsified or fabricated”
About a month ago, we reported on a retraction by Pamela Ronald, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. We noted then that this was a case of scientists doing the right thing. Ronald contacted us after that post ran, and let us know that there would be another retraction shortly. That retraction notice has now appeared, in Science: Continue reading Pamela Ronald does the right thing again, retracting a Science paper