Author: Ivan Oransky

One plagiarized economics paper that won’t need to be retracted

s and bLate last year, we covered a paper wondering why there were so few retractions in business and economics journals. That post was on our minds as we read a fantastic piece of reporting by reporters at the Scarlet & Black, the Grinnell College student paper.

The story concerns Brian Swart, a Grinnell economics professor who “abruptly resigned in the middle of last semester,” reporters Peter Sullivan and Hayes Gardner note. As is unfortunately often the case, the university wouldn’t say why Swart was leaving. But Sullivan and Gardner didn’t leave it there. They talked to “professors from other institutions involved in the situation” and got the food of investigative reporters everywhere: Documents. Those interviews and documents showed that: Continue reading One plagiarized economics paper that won’t need to be retracted

How to report allegations of scientific misconduct

labtimes 1-2013Given the subject of Retraction Watch, readers often email us with papers they’d like us to look into, whether for alleged image manipulation, potential plagiarism or duplication, or other issues. As we explain in question five of our FAQ, we don’t have the resources to do such investigations, unfortunately; we can’t even keep up with all of the actual retractions.

Other sites, such as Science Fraud and Abnormal Science, have tried to fill that gap, and a number of the papers those sites questioned have been retracted. But Abnormal Science is on a long hiatus, and Science Fraud was of course shuttered by legal threats last month. So with that in mind — and also because we also get emails asking the best way to report alleged misconduct — our new LabTimes column is a stepwise guide for those who have concerns about papers that they’d like to see addressed. Continue reading How to report allegations of scientific misconduct

“When we wonder what it all means”: Stapel retraction count rises to 49

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel is up to 49 retractions.

Here are the latest three, from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Continue reading “When we wonder what it all means”: Stapel retraction count rises to 49

German education and research minister Schavan loses doctorate over plagiarism

Schavan
Annette Schavan, via Laurence Chaperon

Annette Schavan, the German minister for education and research, has had her PhD revoked by the University of Dusseldorf following an investigation into alleged plagiarism.

Der Spiegel reports: Continue reading German education and research minister Schavan loses doctorate over plagiarism

WordPress removes Anil Potti posts from Retraction Watch in error after false DMCA copyright claim

If you went looking for ten of our posts about Anil Potti today, you would have seen error messages instead. That’s because someone claiming to be from a news site in India alleged we violated their copyright with those ten posts about the former Duke University cancer researcher who has had 19 papers retracted, corrected, or partially retracted.

The truth of the matter, as is often the case, is exactly the opposite of the allegations. Here’s the email we received from Automattic — which owns WordPress, our blog host — earlier today: Continue reading WordPress removes Anil Potti posts from Retraction Watch in error after false DMCA copyright claim

Retraction 46 arrives for Diederik Stapel

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel has a new retraction, his 46th.

Here’s the notice for “The effects of diffuse and distinct affect. ” by Diederik A. Stapel, Willem Koomen and Kirsten I. Ruys, which appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2002: Continue reading Retraction 46 arrives for Diederik Stapel

First author of recently retracted paper has another corrected, in J Ag Food Chem

jafcau_v061i004.inddA paper that shares a first author with a paper retracted in December has been corrected.

Late last year, we reported on a retraction in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling (ARDS) by Indika Edirisinghe, who was at the University of Rochester when the original paper was published, and colleagues. On January 17, the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry published a correction to “Effect of Black Currant Anthocyanins on the Activation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) in Vitro in Human Endothelial Cells,” on which Edirisinghe is also first author.

His affiliation on that paper, originally published in July 2011, is the Illinois Institute of Technology. Here’s the correction: Continue reading First author of recently retracted paper has another corrected, in J Ag Food Chem

Study of blood pressure drug valsartan retracted

matsubaraHiroaki Matsubara, a prominent cardiologist with five Expressions of Concern and two retractions for his CV, has another retraction.

As Larry Husten, who first reported the retraction at Forbes, notes, the notice for 2009’s “Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: KYOTO HEART Study,” which appeared in the European Heart Journal, says very little: Continue reading Study of blood pressure drug valsartan retracted

Seizure study retracted after authors realize data got “terribly mixed”

ind j pedsA group of neonatologists in Germany has retracted a paper after apparently realizing that their data weren’t what they thought they were.

Here’s the notice, for “Low Dose Lidocaine for Refractory Seizures in Preterm Neonates,” which appeared in the Indian Journal of Pediatrics: Continue reading Seizure study retracted after authors realize data got “terribly mixed”

Has “double-dipping” cost U.S. science funding agencies tens of millions of dollars?

Photo by Peyri via Flickr
Photo by Peyri via Flickr

Last year, an audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found “a potential for unnecessary duplication” among the billions of dollars in research grants funded by national agencies. Some researchers, it seemed, could be winning more than one grant to do the same research.

Prompted by that report, Virginia Tech’s Skip Garner and his colleagues used eTBLAST, which Garner invented, to review more than 630,000 grant applications submitted to the NIH, NSF, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, “the largest charitable funder of breast cancer research in the United States.” The approach was not unlike those by publishers to identify potential article duplications.

In a Comment published today in Nature, they report that they found 1,300 applications above a “similarity score” cutoff of 0.8 for federal agencies, and 0.65 for Komen documents — “with 1 indicating identical text in two same-length documents, and more than 1 representing identical text in one piece that is longer than the other.”

When they manually reviewed those 1,300: Continue reading Has “double-dipping” cost U.S. science funding agencies tens of millions of dollars?