Author: Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: Views on the “grievance studies” hoax; universities play “pass the harasser;” what next for NEJM?

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 questions about what should happen to a paper published by Theranos; a replication of a famous paper on treatment of writer’s block that led to — well, you’ll see; a researcher joining our leaderboard’s top 10; and a data faker who became chief scientific officer of a cannabis product company. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Views on the “grievance studies” hoax; universities play “pass the harasser;” what next for NEJM?

Chief scientific officer of a high-flying cannabis product company faked data at the NIH

The chief scientific officer of a cannabis product company whose stock price has been hotter than a flaming joint (sorry) was known more than 18 months ago to have committed research misconduct while at the U.S. National Institutes of Health — casting a cloud of suspicion over the firm’s operations.

Marketwatch reported yesterday that the company, India Globalization Capital, which trades on the New York Stock Exchange as IGC, has at least nine other “red flags” for investors, from questions about its ability to manufacture cannabinoids to a history of trouble with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Until August, the company’s stock had been trading below 50 cents per share. It began a dramatic rise, eventually reaching $13 per share. MarketWatch notes:

Continue reading Chief scientific officer of a high-flying cannabis product company faked data at the NIH

Cancer researcher who once tried to sue critics is up to 40 retracted papers

Fazlul Sarkar

Welcome to the Top 10, Fazlul Sarkar.

Sarkar, the cancer researcher formerly of Wayne State University who once tried to sue critics on PubPeer, has had another seven papers retracted. That makes a total of 40, and places him in the Top 10 of our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions.

Three of the retractions appear in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and four are from PLOS ONE. All involve falsification of data; one article had been corrected earlier, in 2014. Continue reading Cancer researcher who once tried to sue critics is up to 40 retracted papers

Researchers replicated a classic paper on unsuccessful treatment of writer’s block. Then they tried to write it up.

Matt Brodhead

In 1974, Dennis Upper published a paper — well, to be precise, a blank page — entitled “THE UNSUCCESSFUL SELF-TREATMENT OF A CASE OF “WRITER’S BLOCK.” There have been several attempts to replicate the work, which has become a classic among a certain cohort of academics.

Until late last month, however, there was no multidisciplinary attempt to replicate the study. (As best we can tell, anyway. Who has time to do a proper literature review these days?) Now there is, along with an editor’s note that calls it “an exceptionally fine piece of scholarship.” We felt the best way to celebrate this auspicious occasion — coming about as far on the calendar from April 1 as one can — would be to interview the corresponding author of the new paper, Matt Brodhead, of Michigan State University. Lucky for us, he did not suffer from writer’s block, so he could respond to our questions by email.

Q: We can’t find the actual paper, even though the editor’s note refers to “the article below.” Did you bury your results in the supplemental information?
Continue reading Researchers replicated a classic paper on unsuccessful treatment of writer’s block. Then they tried to write it up.

What should happen to a paper published by Theranos?

Elizabeth Holmes, via Wikimedia

Last December, a group of scientists at a biotech firm published a paper on a “miniaturized, robotic clinical laboratory.” The technique, according to the authors, “would benefit patients and physicians alike.”

Nothing terribly unusual there. But what was — and what caught the eye of a Retraction Watch reader — was the name of the last author: Elizabeth Holmes.

Continue reading What should happen to a paper published by Theranos?

Former director of U.S. research watchdog agency moves to NIH

Kathy Partin

Kathy Partin, who served as director of the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for just under two years until being removed from the post late in 2017, has a new position at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Retraction Watch has learned.

As of yesterday (Sept. 30), Partin is intramural research integrity officer at the NIH. She replaces Melissa Colbert, who will be retiring. Continue reading Former director of U.S. research watchdog agency moves to NIH

Weekend reads: Lessons from the downfall of Brian Wansink; “scientific terrorism” redux; why Cochrane booted a member

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 journal reversing three retractions, retractions for “irreconcilable differences,” and an expression of concern for papers whose authors failed to adequately disclose ties to Monsanto. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Lessons from the downfall of Brian Wansink; “scientific terrorism” redux; why Cochrane booted a member

Journal reverses retractions, says apparent citation manipulation was “an innocent and honest mistake”

A journal that retracted three papers earlier this year because of concerns that one of the authors had asked conference presenters to cite them has republished the articles, saying that it has “inconclusive evidence of improper behavior.”

In February, we reported that the Journal of Vibroengineering had retracted three papers by Magd Abdel Wahab, of Ghent University in Belgium. Wahab had chaired a recent conference, and as we reported then, almost three-quarters of papers that cited Wahab’s three papers originated from the conference. Journal editor Minvydas Ragulskis told us that was “large enough to assume a high probability for citation manipulation.”

At the time, Wahab told us the papers would be republished. And it turns that they were, not long after our original post. There is no explanation on the papers themselves, just a “Republished Paper” in front of the three titles, and an editorial note that is not linked, as best we can tell, from any of the papers.

Along with the citation data the investigation was based on, that note explains that: Continue reading Journal reverses retractions, says apparent citation manipulation was “an innocent and honest mistake”

Weekend reads: The study that never existed; turmoil at Cochrane; a plagiarist is appointed professor

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 lot of news about Brian Wansink — six new retractions, his resignation, and findings of misconduct. There was other news, too, including a dozen new retractions of work by a scientist who once went to court to try to sue his critics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: The study that never existed; turmoil at Cochrane; a plagiarist is appointed professor

Wansink admits mistakes, but says there was “no fraud, no intentional misreporting”

Brian Wansink (far left)

Brian Wansink, the Cornell food marketing researcher who announced his resignation yesterday and has been found to have committed misconduct by the university, admits to mistakes and poor record-keeping in a statement released today.

But he insists that there was “no fraud, no intentional misreporting, no plagiarism, or no misappropriation.” (See entire statement below.) Continue reading Wansink admits mistakes, but says there was “no fraud, no intentional misreporting”