Diederik Stapel, the social psychologist who has now retracted 54 papers, recently spoke as part of the TEDx Braintrain, which took place on a trip from Maastricht to Amsterdam. Among other things, he says he lost his moral compass, but that it’s back.
Here’s the talk, which lasts 17 minutes: Continue reading Diederik Stapel speaks
The Journal of of Inequalities and Applications has retracted a paper for unspecified “ethical problems.”
Here’s the notice for “Strong Limiting Behavior in Binary Search Trees:” Continue reading Math paper retracted because it “contains some ethical problems”
Last week, we reported on a new paper by Scripps Research Institute researchers in which they described how two of their previous papers had been based on mistaken interpretations. The authors wrote in their new paper that they were retracting the earlier works, but the journal had told them the papers would be corrected instead.
We had asked Protein Science editor Brian Matthews for clarification, and he emailed us late last week:
Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Should these papers be retracted?
A Danish researcher has responded to a draft report of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) that found she had acted in a “scientifically dishonest” and “grossly negligent” manner.
Bente Klarlund Pedersen, a University of Copenhagen researcher, has published with Milena Penkowa, four of whose papers have been retracted following investigations. In the press, she argued that while she had made mistakes, she had not committed misconduct.
The 57-page letter from Klarlund Pedersen’s attorney to the DCSD responds in detail to the critique of her work, including twelve papers. This passage from the summary gathers the arguments together: Continue reading Regrettable, but not scientifically dishonest: Klarlund Pedersen responds to Danish committee
Earlier this week, in a story by Richard van Noorden, Nature revealed the hidden workings of a scheme referred to as “citation stacking” that has landed a number of journals in trouble. The story begins:
Mauricio Rocha-e-Silva thought that he had spotted an easy way to raise the profiles of Brazilian journals. From 2009, he and several other editors published articles containing hundreds of references to papers in each others’ journals — in order, he says, to elevate the journals’ impact factors.
As Nature reports, Rocha-e-Silva was apparently frustrated that Brazilian government agencies were relying heavily on impact factor to evaluate graduate programs. That meant few scientists were willing to publish in Brazilian journals, which had lower impact factors. Rocha-e-Silva describes some of these frustrations in an impassioned 2009 editorial (in Portuguese). Continue reading Journal retracts two papers after being caught manipulating citations
What do you do when new experiments show that you interpreted the data from your old experiments the wrong way?
Some scientists might just shrug and sweep those errors — and their previous papers — under the rug. But when it happened to Jeffery Kelly, of the Scripps Research Institute, and his colleagues, they decided to retract their earlier work.
Here’s the abstract of their new paper (we bolded a few sentences for emphasis): Continue reading Doing the right thing: Researchers retract two studies when they realize they misinterpreted data
Case report: An 85-year-old man eats some chicken and unknowingly swallows a bone. After two days of worsening abdominal pain, he shows up to the emergency room. A CT scan reveals the bone perforating his colon. He is rushed to surgery, which is successful. Then, during his otherwise uneventful recovery, he develops female breasts.
That’s not exactly the case report that showed up in the International Journal of Surgical Case Reports earlier this month, but then again, the images in the relevant case report aren’t exactly of someone’s colon, either.
With a warning that the clinical images below are mildly NSFW, here’s Figure 1 from the cleverly titled “Chicken or the leg: Sigmoid colon perforation by ingested poultry fibula proximal to an occult malignancy:” Continue reading Sir, that’s not my colon: Journal has a bite of a chicken and egg problem
Last week, we launched a new feature, “Ask Retraction Watch.” We invited readers to send in their questions. Here’s one we got right away: Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Is publishing my thesis verbatim self-plagiarism?
When Retraction Watch readers think of problematic psychology research, their minds might naturally turn to Diederik Stapel, who now has 54 retractions under his belt. Dirk Smeesters might also tickle the neurons.
But a look at our psychology category shows that psychology retractions are an international phenomenon. (Remember Marc Hauser?) And a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggests that it’s behavioral science researchers in the U.S. who are more likely to exaggerate or cherry-pick their findings.
For the new paper, Daniele Fanelli — whose 2009 paper in PLoS ONE contains some of the best data on the prevalence of misconduct — teamed up with John Ioannidis, well known for his work on “why most published research findings are false.” They looked at Continue reading Are US behavioral science researchers more likely to exaggerate their results?
Rakesh Kumar, a professor at the George Washington University, has retracted a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) that was recently questioned on PubPeer.
Here are Peer1’s comments from PubPeer about the paper, “Mechanism of MTA1 Protein Overexpression-linked Invasion:” Continue reading Author with six recent corrections retracts JBC paper questioned on PubPeer