Author: Ivan Oransky

Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn?

C. K. Gunsalus

Today, the Ohio State University (OSU) announced that Ching-Shih Chen, who resigned from a professorship there in September, was guilty of “deviating from the accepted practices of image handling and figure generation and intentionally falsifying data” in 14 images from eight papers. Chen had earned more than $8 million in Federal grants, and his work had led to a compound now being testing in clinical trials for cancer. (For details of the case, see our story in Science.)

Ching-Shih Chen

OSU — which has been involved in several high-profile cases of misconduct recently — released a lightly-redacted version of their investigation report, and we asked C.K. Gunsalus, who has decades of experience reviewing similar cases, to examine it for us. A Q&A follows.

 

Retraction Watch (RW): What’s your impression of the case? How does it compare in significance with others you’ve looked at? Continue reading Ohio State just released a 75-page report finding misconduct by a cancer researcher. What can we learn?

Weekend reads: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on fake peer review

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? 

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on a “gut makeover,” a retraction following a mass resignation from an editorial board, and the resignation of a management researcher who admitted to misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on fake peer review

Journal retracts study linking “gut makeover” to weight loss, improved health

Over the objections of the authors, PLOS ONE has retracted a paper linking a diet designed to restore healthy gut bacteria to weight loss and other benefits.

The study, published in June 2017, claimed to show that a “Microbiome restoration diet improves digestion, cognition and physical and emotional wellbeing.” The diet was one championed by The Gut Makeover, whose author, Jeannette Hyde, is also a co-author on the paper (which the paper clearly disclosed). The diet is “designed to improve the health and diversity of the microbiome,” the microbiota that live within us.

The paper apparently prompted some criticisms, and even led one academic editor at PLOS ONE to resign. The journal  now says “the conclusions of this study are not supported by the data presented,” and have retracted it. But the case may reveal more about the limitations of peer review at the journal than it does about any weaknesses of the study. Continue reading Journal retracts study linking “gut makeover” to weight loss, improved health

Weekend reads: No reproducibility crisis?; greatest corrections of all time; an archaeology fraud

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on homeopathy whose authors had been arrested; news about 30 retractions for an engineer in South Korea; and a story about how two stem cell researchers who left Harvard under a cloud are being recommended for roles at Italy’s NIH. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: No reproducibility crisis?; greatest corrections of all time; an archaeology fraud

Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that over the past year or so, we have been making an effort to obtain and publish reports about institutional investigations into misconduct. That’s led to posts such as one about a case at the University of Colorado, Denver, one about the case of Frank Sauer, formerly of the University of California, Riverside, and this story on a case out of the University of Florida.

We’ve obtained the dozen-plus reports we’ve published so far by a variety of means, from public records requests to court documents to old-fashioned leaks. Reading these reports confirms what others — including the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. National Science Foundation — have found. Namely, the reports — which are subject to an inherent conflict of interest, given that institutions are investigating their own — are uneven at best.

We’d like to do something about that. Continue reading Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Weekend reads: A new plagiarism euphemism; how Photoshop abuse destroys science; bias against women authors

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at what happens to authors when a journal is delisted, a reminder of how hard it is to figure out whether a paper has been retracted, and a survey on how common plagiarism is in economics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A new plagiarism euphemism; how Photoshop abuse destroys science; bias against women authors

Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of how two highly cited papers turned out to be wrong; a big prize for a researcher who has been dogged by allegations; and a mass resignation at a journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?

Retraction Watch is back at full speed. Here’s what you need to do to make sure you’re seeing our content.

Our readers will likely know that the site has been having significant trouble for more than two weeks. Thanks for your patience, your offers to help, and for sticking with us during that time. We’re happy to say that we seem to have identified all of the various issues involved, and have solved them. Some of those fixes may mean that you’ll need to resubscribe to our email alerts, so keep reading (or skip over the vaguely technical stuff in the next few paragraphs if you’d rather). Continue reading Retraction Watch is back at full speed. Here’s what you need to do to make sure you’re seeing our content.

Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

We seem to be past the worst of our technical issues, so thanks for your patience with us over the past few weeks. (Some of the fixes came at a cost, so we would be remiss if we did not ask readers to consider a donation to support our work.)

The week at Retraction Watch featured coverage of a now-dropped lawsuit against PNAS, how much it costs to have a PhD dissertation written for you, and findings of misconduct by a top academic recruit. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

Weekend reads: We’re back! (We hope); the data thugs; heroes of retraction

As many of our readers will know, we’ve been having serious technical issues with the site. We’re cautiously optimistic that they’ve been solved, so although we’re still working on fixes, we’re going to try posting again. Thanks for your ongoing patience.

This week, we posted at our sister site, Embargo Watch. Here are those posts:

And here’s what’s been happening elsewhere over the past few weeks: Continue reading Weekend reads: We’re back! (We hope); the data thugs; heroes of retraction