Author: Ivan Oransky

“With great pity,” author retracts paper for “severe problems” including references that “are not allowed to be cited” and “severe law issues”

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr

Fair warning: We’re really not sure what’s going on here.

The authors of “Effect of total flavonoids on expression of collagen, TGF-β1, and Smad 7 in hypertrophic scars,” a 2018 paper in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, have retracted it for, well, lots of reasons.

None of them is exactly clear.

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading “With great pity,” author retracts paper for “severe problems” including references that “are not allowed to be cited” and “severe law issues”

An author told a journal their institution had no one who handled allegations. Turns out that wasn’t true.

Istituto Superiore di Sanità

Should journals always take authors at their word?

Take the case of a recent expression of concern in the Journal of Cell Science following concerns about image manipulation in a 2006 paper, “Inhibition of TPO-induced MEK or mTOR activity induces opposite effects on the ploidy of human differentiating megakaryocytes.”

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading An author told a journal their institution had no one who handled allegations. Turns out that wasn’t true.

Weekend reads: How much is integrity worth?; killing the science poster; future of megajournals in doubt?

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a big announcement: You can now receive alerts about retractions in your database of references if you use Zotero, the free, open-source research platform. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Continue reading Weekend reads: How much is integrity worth?; killing the science poster; future of megajournals in doubt?

Forensics Friday: Notice anything odd about this figure?

Ever wanted to hone your skills as a scientific sleuth? Now’s your chance.

Thanks to the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), which is committed to educating authors on best practices in publishing, figure preparation, and reproducibility, we’re presenting the sixth in a series, Forensics Friday.

Take a look at the image below, and then take our poll. After that, click on the link below to find out the right answer.

Continue reading Forensics Friday: Notice anything odd about this figure?

Want to check for retractions in your personal library — and get alerts — for free? Now you can

We’re thrilled to announce a collaboration with Zotero,  the free and open-source research platform, that will allow its users to be alerted to retractions of any papers in their personal libraries.

As Retraction Watch readers know, making that kind of functionality possible has been our goal since we announced plans to create a comprehensive database of retractions. Once that database officially launched last October, in conjunction with an analysis of its contents by reporters at Science, we began discussions in earnest with potential partners who could make that happen.

We’re pleased that the first such collaboration is with Zotero, “a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, cite, and share research” that “is open source and developed by an independent, nonprofit organization that has no financial interest in your private information.” Here’s a posting from lead Zotero developer Dan Stillman:

Continue reading Want to check for retractions in your personal library — and get alerts — for free? Now you can

“Permeable to bad science:” Journal retracts paper hailed by proponents of homeopathy

Poison oak

Eight months after publishing a paper claiming that homeopathy can treat pain in rats, a Springer Nature journal is retracting the work.

The move follows swift criticism of the paper in Scientific Reports, which was written by researchers from India and the United Arab Emirates about the use of Toxicodendron pubescens, “popularly known as Rhus Tox (RT),” which “is recommended in alternative medicines as an anti-inflammatory and analgesic remedy.” The species is also commonly known as poison oak.

Here’s the retraction notice:

Continue reading “Permeable to bad science:” Journal retracts paper hailed by proponents of homeopathy

Weekend reads: Dean withdraws from post after retraction of Lancet book review; star researcher committed misconduct; a new way to game peer review?

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a reminder that sometimes science just needs more bullshit; a call to make misconduct investigation reports public; and a puzzle about why retractions took so long. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Continue reading Weekend reads: Dean withdraws from post after retraction of Lancet book review; star researcher committed misconduct; a new way to game peer review?

Forensics Friday: What’s the best way to present these findings in a figure?

Ever wanted to hone your skills as a scientific sleuth? Now’s your chance.

Thanks to the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), which is committed to educating authors on best practices in publishing, figure preparation, and reproducibility, we’re presenting the fifth in a series, Forensics Friday.

Take a look at the image below, and then take our poll. After that, click on the link below to find out the right answer.

Continue reading Forensics Friday: What’s the best way to present these findings in a figure?

Why did all of these retractions take more than three years?

via Flickr

In December 2015, a U.S. government watchdog said a researcher named Girija Dasmahapatra had faked data in 11 papers. Two of those papers were retracted by October 2016.

And then, until this year, nothing happened.

Continue reading Why did all of these retractions take more than three years?

“Our current approaches are not working:” Time to make misconduct investigation reports public, says integrity expert

C. K. Gunsalus

With the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) underway in Hong Kong, C.K. Gunsalus, who has served as a research integrity officer, expert witness in scientific integrity cases, and consultant, argues in Nature this week that universities should “Make reports of research misconduct public.” We asked her a few questions about why she has changed her mind about this issue.

Retraction Watch (RW): We have of course been campaigning for universities to release investigation reports for some time, and have published a number of them following public records requests and reviews of court documents. What led you to this call to make them public?

Continue reading “Our current approaches are not working:” Time to make misconduct investigation reports public, says integrity expert