At team of researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center has retracted a paper after realizing that the cell lines they were using weren’t what they thought they were.
Here’s the detailed notice: Continue reading Cancer cell line mixup leads to retraction
Yesterday, Marc Hauser, the former Harvard psychologist found by the Office of Research Integrity to have committed misconduct, tweeted that his new book, Evilicious, is coming out on October 15.
An excerpt of the book, which was originally scheduled to be published by Viking/Penguin, is available at Hauser’s website. (We learned about the book in a blog post by Andrew Gelman.) Viking/Penguin is apparently no longer publishing it, however, as the book will be available “at Amazon as a Kindle Select, for print-on-demand at Createspace, and as an audio book at Audible (also available on Amazon).”
What caught our eye were two blurbs. One was from Nicholas Wade, former science editor of the New York Times, who covered the Hauser case, and co-authored 1983’s Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. The other was from Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, and a monthly columnist for Scientific American.
Wade: Continue reading Marc Hauser’s second chance: Leading science writers endorse his upcoming book
A fight over who owns tuberculosis study data has led the Journal of Clinical Microbiology to publish an Expression of Concern.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Spat over tuberculosis study data leads to Expression of Concern
Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:
As experts in authorship matters, I was wondering if you could offer some guidance. I read that all authors have to approve submission of a paper. Unfortunately, a colleague of mine recently passed away. The manuscripts which he helped draft are being submitted with our colleague as author with a note of explanation to the editor and a footnote in the paper. These seem fairly simple. However, what about projects in which they were very much involved but where the manuscript drafting is done entirely after the time of death? Should their contribution be recognized in the acknowledgements rather than “author”? Many thanks.
Vote in our poll, and comment below: Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: How should deceased colleagues be credited in papers?
That’s the question we pose in our newest column in LabTimes, based on some recent cases we’ve covered:
The implication seems to be that as long as researchers can pass off their mistakes as sloppiness, rather than intentional misconduct, they should be forgiven and carry on their work. We’re with that logic, to a point; after all, we’ve argued before that due process is much too important, no matter how apparently damning the evidence is. And as long as corrections and retraction notices are detailed, telling the whole story, science and the public are served. Continue reading Should science put up with sloppiness?
A former anthropologist at the Free University in Amsterdam appears to have made up data for at least 61 papers, and invented awards and other parts of his CV, according to a university investigation.
The news was first reported by NRC Handelsblad and the Volkskrant newspaper.
Bax, who studied an Irish town he called Patricksville, a Dutch pilgrimage site he called Neerdonk, and Medjugorje, a Bosnian pilgrimage site, retired from the Free University in 2002. The university began investigating Bax’s work last year Continue reading Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax faked 61 papers, says university
Dong Hee Shin, who studies virtual reality and other technology and who has already retracted five papers, has had another retracted.
Here’s the notice in the Journal of Media Economics: Continue reading Sixth retraction appears for virtual reality researcher
The latest issue of Elsevier’s Editors’ Update is part one of a two-part series on publishing ethics. It contains a bevy of articles on various issues that will be be familiar to Retraction Watch readers, from bias to research misconduct. (Not surprisingly, given the sheer number of journals they publish, Elsevier shows up regularly on Retraction Watch.)
In one of the pieces, Applied Surface Science editor in chief Henrik Rudolph pulls no punches: Continue reading Editor: “Close to 10% of the papers we receive show some sign of academic misconduct”
In 2005, Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada published a paper in American Psychologist making a bold and specific claim:
…the authors predict that a ratio of positive to negative affect at or above 2.9 will characterize individuals in flourishing mental health.
The paper made quite a splash. It has been cited 360 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and formed the basis of a 2009 book by Fredrickson, Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life.
But something didn’t sit right with Nick Brown, a psychology grad student at the University of East London. He found the paper’s claims wanting, and contacted Alan Sokal — yes, that Alan Sokal, who published a fake paper in Social Text in 1996. Sokal agreed, and he, Brown, and Harris Friedman published a critique of the paper in July of this year in American Psychologist. Its abstract: Continue reading Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn
Last December, we brought you the story of a math paper that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically.” Today, we have that retraction’s cousin: A physics paper retracted because some of the data are “unphysical.”
Here’s the notice for “Room temperature ferromagnetism in pure and Co- and Fe-doped CeO2 dilute magnetic oxide: effect of oxygen vacancies and cation valence,” which was published in April 2011 in the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics: Continue reading That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”