The week at Retraction Watch featured authors making a difficult decision to retract once-promising findings about gliobastoma, and sanctions for a researcher in whose lab image manipulations were found. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: 10 rules for research misconduct; peer review’s black box; the rich get richer
Author: Ivan Oransky
The RW week in review: Doing the right thing, two journals’ first retractions
Did you miss some of this week’s posts? Here they all are, in one handy roundup: Continue reading The RW week in review: Doing the right thing, two journals’ first retractions
Weekend reads: Six-figure publishing bonuses; Google’s scientific influence campaign
The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of a group devastated to learn that they had used the wrong mice in their experiments, and the tale of how keycard swipe records gave away faked data. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Six-figure publishing bonuses; Google’s scientific influence campaign
“We were devastated:” Authors retract paper after realizing they had used the wrong mice
Longtime readers of Retraction Watch may recall a 2011 post about a research team that retracted a paper after realizing that they had ordered the wrong mice. Maureen Gannon and Raymond Pasek of Vanderbilt University contacted us earlier this week to alert us to a similar case: Their retraction, earlier this month, of a 2016 paper from American Journal of Physiology – Endocrinology and Metabolism after discovering that “a colleague from another lab had mistakenly supplied us with the wrong transgenic mouse line.”
“We strongly believe that sharing this example will encourage other researchers to do the right thing when a mistake is discovered and promote academic integrity,” they wrote. So we asked them to answer a few questions about their experience with “Connective tissue growth factor is critical for proper β-cell function and pregnancy-induced β-cell hyperplasia in adult mice,” a paper that has been cited twice, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
Retraction Watch: How, and when, did you become aware of the error? Continue reading “We were devastated:” Authors retract paper after realizing they had used the wrong mice
Weekend reads: The ‘Journal Grand Master,’ what drives online attention to studies; a song of replication
The week at Retraction Watch featured a story of unintended consequences and a broken relationship, and a retraction for a paper that had just about everything wrong with it. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: The ‘Journal Grand Master,’ what drives online attention to studies; a song of replication
Weekend reads: Why a vice-chancellor uses Impact Factors; plagiarizing principals; time to publish less?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the tale of a scientist whose explanations for misconduct kept changing, and revelations in a big legal case involving Duke University. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Why a vice-chancellor uses Impact Factors; plagiarizing principals; time to publish less?
Weekend reads: Death penalty for scientific fraud?; Why criticism is good; Cash for publishing
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about a case of misconduct at the University of Colorado Denver, and the case of a do-over that led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Weekend reads: Science’s citation problem; researcher rehab; a strange new journal
The week at Retraction Watch featured the resignation of a researcher found to have fudged data in a study of Crossfit, and allegations of bullying by a scientist who wouldn’t let a trainee publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Science’s citation problem; researcher rehab; a strange new journal
Quick: What does fish food have to do with X-rays? In this case, an Elsevier production error
In 2012, a study claiming to show — after some intentional statistical tricks — that a dead salmon had brain activity in an fMRI won a prestigious (and hilarious) Ig Nobel Prize.
So five years later, when Bálint Botz tweeted wryly about a study of fish and plants in a radiology journal, we thought, “Aha, someone is trying to create another red herring!”
But alas, it turns out the reason a journal normally concerned with X-rays would suddenly be interested in aquaponics was far more prosaic: Continue reading Quick: What does fish food have to do with X-rays? In this case, an Elsevier production error
Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a study suggesting that 2% of studies in eight medical journals contained suspect data, and the announcement of a retraction on a professor’s blog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?