Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: Why scientists respond badly to criticism; hidden retractions; journal cancels issue

The week at Retraction Watch featured a researcher whose ideas were stolen at least three times, a victory for Crossfit in its attempt to reveal peer reviewers, and the second delisting of a cancer journal by an index that praised it just months ago. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Why scientists respond badly to criticism; hidden retractions; journal cancels issue

Weekend reads: A manuscript marriage proposal; a biotech company screw-up; “systematic failure” in run-up to vaccine trial

The week at Retraction Watch featured “a concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety,” the loss of a grant following findings of misconduct in a controversial study, and a request that authors remove a reference for libel concerns. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A manuscript marriage proposal; a biotech company screw-up; “systematic failure” in run-up to vaccine trial

Weekend reads: Why following up on fraud matters; how many retractions in 2017?; misleading abstracts

The week at Retraction Watch featured the world energy solution that wasn’t, a story about Elsevier and fake peer reviews, and a question from a readers about citing retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Why following up on fraud matters; how many retractions in 2017?; misleading abstracts

Ask Retraction Watch: Is it OK to cite a retracted paper?

From our mailbox:

I’m writing regarding a recent query from an author about citation of a retracted article. The author is currently writing up a paper where the initial investigations were at least partially inspired by a paper that has recently been retracted. The author wants to recognise the influence of that work on the new study, but also recognises that – since the paper has been retracted – it would not be appropriate simply to cite it as though it were still a published paper. This isn’t a situation we’ve come across before, and I’m not sure how best to advise the author. Is it acceptable to discuss the findings of that paper provided the text clearly mentions that the paper has since been retracted? And how should this be cited in the reference list – citation to the original paper, to the retraction notice, or not at all? As experts in this area, any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Is it OK to cite a retracted paper?

Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a year-end tax-deductible donation to support it?

The week at Retraction Watch featured an image so nice, it was used eight times, a co-author who forgot he’d used a figure elsewhere, and the 19th retraction for a researcher who tried to sue a PubPeer commenter. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

Weekend Reads: A journal apologizes; how to win a Nobel; changes at the top for top journals

The week at Retraction Watch featured the year’s top 10 retractions, more than two dozen retractions at Elsevier for fake peer review, and the resignations of two editors in chief over a controversial paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend Reads: A journal apologizes; how to win a Nobel; changes at the top for top journals

Weekend reads: Weaponized plagiarism; bias against low-income country research; the uncited papers

The week at Retraction Watch featured commentary on yet another paper claiming a link between autism and vaccines, a welcome useful retraction notice, and a rewrite of a paper that influenced car seat guidelines. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Weaponized plagiarism; bias against low-income country research; the uncited papers

“Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism

Retraction Watch readers may be forgiven for thinking that there has been at least a small uptick in the papers that claim to link autism and vaccines, and yet tend to raise more questions than they answer. Sometimes, they are retracted. See here, here and here, for example. We talk to David Gorski, well known for his fights against pseudoscience, about the most recent example.

Retraction Watch (RW): You describe a recent paper reporting high levels of aluminum in the brains of people with autism as “utterly awful.” What are your main criticisms of the paper? Continue reading “Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism