Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: A troubling precedent out of China; journals as corporate tools; postdocs and suicide

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper linked to vaccines, and what happens when a journal retracts 107 papers at once. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A troubling precedent out of China; journals as corporate tools; postdocs and suicide

Weekend reads: Predatory fraud; risky spreadsheets; how to report issues in a paper

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at publishing bounties around the world, and the story of how the “right to be forgotten” law had led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Predatory fraud; risky spreadsheets; how to report issues in a paper

Weekend reads: A science BS detector; scholarly publishing’s 1%; a tenured professor is fired

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a 35-year-old paper written by a cat, and the retraction of a study about a controversial gene editing technique. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A science BS detector; scholarly publishing’s 1%; a tenured professor is fired

A press release had “fake” and “NASA” in its headline. Then it was retracted.

Last Thursday, struck — as it were — by a headline about an asteroid preparedness test, I took to Twitter:

Putting "fake" and "NASA" into a press release headline in today's climate: Risky, or Troll Level: Master? https://t.co/Wn0wypQm4z

— Ivan Oransky (@ivanoransky) July 28, 2017

I couldn’t quite tell if this was a clever dig at a certain President’s penchant for calling everything “fake news,” or a risky gambit, given various “faked Moon landing” conspiracy theories — or both.

And then, less than 90 minutes after I tweeted, the press release was retracted, with a note that an edited version would be reissued.

The original headline was: Continue reading A press release had “fake” and “NASA” in its headline. Then it was retracted.

After investigation that started at least 5 years ago, retired ob-gyn prof agrees to 5 years of supervision

A now-retired professor tweaked the findings in seven figures of a 2007 paper, according to a new finding of misconduct released yesterday by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.

The subject of the findings isn’t a stranger to our readers: We’ve already reported on nine retractions for Nasser Chegini, a former professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida (UF) who had won more than $4 million in Federal grants. And Chegini, who retired in early 2012, had been under investigation since at least 2012, with the ORI asking UF to broaden that investigation at one point.

Indeed, the ORI’s notice states that eight of Chegini’s retractions resulted from the UF’s investigation. The ORI’s findings, however, stem from another paper, published in the Journal of Reproductive Immunology, which has not been retracted.

According to the ORI, in that paper, Chegini:

Continue reading After investigation that started at least 5 years ago, retired ob-gyn prof agrees to 5 years of supervision

Weekend reads: Subscription journals doomed?; Are scientists most often wrong?; “Buxom grapefruits”

The week at Retraction Watch featured an update on a Harvard lab whose PI is subject to a restraining order by one of his grad students, and the retraction of a paper that used male-only pronouns. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Subscription journals doomed?; Are scientists most often wrong?; “Buxom grapefruits”

The Harvard lab head, the grad student, and the restraining order: An ongoing saga

Regular Retraction Watch readers may recall a remarkable story from January involving Harvard’s Lee Rubin and one of his graduate students. As we reported in Science at the time, the graduate student, Gustavo German, said he had been subjected to a forced psychiatric evaluation as “an act of revenge by Rubin, retaliation prompted by German’s allegation of scientific misconduct against Rubin and two of his students.” And a judge “agreed with German, concluding [last August] that Rubin was ‘motivated by bias and revenge, not by a legitimate interest in keeping German safe.'”

That led to a restraining order that required Rubin to remain 100 feet from German at all times — including in the lab where German was working on his PhD.

Today, we have an update on the story, also in Science: “At Harvard, extraordinary court battle between Ph.D. student and prominent researcher grinds on.” As our Alison McCook writes: Continue reading The Harvard lab head, the grad student, and the restraining order: An ongoing saga