The week at Retraction Watch featured an exclusive about a prominent heart researcher being dismissed, and a look at signs that a paper’s authorship was bought. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Bad peer reviews; crimes against science; misconduct at Oxford
Author: Ivan Oransky
Did you miss Weekend Reads? Here it is.
Apologies, our email software is acting up again. Here’s today’s Weekend Reads.
Weekend reads: Why so much research is dodgy; why scientists should shun journals; ethical grey zones
The week at Retraction Watch featured a cancer researcher retracting 19 studies at once from a single journal, and the story of how a 7-year-old came to publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Why so much research is dodgy; why scientists should shun journals; ethical grey zones
Cancer researcher retracts 19 studies at once
A former cancer biologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida has retracted 19 papers from a single journal.
Jin Cheng, who studies how ovarian cancer develops, withdrew 19 papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry originally published over the last 15 years, and corrected another. All of the retractions are for image manipulation.
For example, here’s the notice for “Activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt pathway by androgen through interaction of p85α, androgen receptor, and Src,” a paper originally published in 2003: Continue reading Cancer researcher retracts 19 studies at once
Ohio State, CrossFit gym make six-figure settlement over corrected paper’s injury claims
The Ohio State University (OSU) has settled a lawsuit with a CrossFit affiliate over allegations that a study had defamed the gym.
As first reported by Columbus Underground, the university has agreed to pay Mitchell Potterf, owner of Fit Club in Columbus, Ohio, $145,000 to settle claims that a 2013 paper by OSU researchers included false data about injuries suffered by 11 athletes who took part in a fitness challenge. According to a statement filed by Potterf and his attorney, Ken Donchatz, in the Ohio Court of Claims, based on depositions, Continue reading Ohio State, CrossFit gym make six-figure settlement over corrected paper’s injury claims
Weekend reads: Arguments for abandoning “statistically significant,” boorish behavior, and useless clinical trials
The week at Retraction Watch featured developments in the retraction of a paper claiming the dangers of GMOs, and claims of censorship by a Nature journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Arguments for abandoning “statistically significant,” boorish behavior, and useless clinical trials
Eighth Voinnet paper retracted — this one from Science
A high-profile plant scientist who has been racking up corrections and retractions at a steady clip has had another paper — this one from Science — retracted.
The retraction, of a paper that had been previously corrected, is the eighth for Olivier Voinnet. According to the notice, the correction did not address all the figure problems with the paper, which “cannot be considered the result of mistakes.”
Here’s the notice in full: Continue reading Eighth Voinnet paper retracted — this one from Science
Weekend reads: Questions about NIH success story; do Nobels need a reset?; coercing PhD graduates
The week at Retraction Watch featured doubts about the effects of oxytocin, aka the “love hormone,” and a report on how common reference errors are. Here’s what was happening elsewhere, with apologies for the later-than-usual posting: Continue reading Weekend reads: Questions about NIH success story; do Nobels need a reset?; coercing PhD graduates
Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux
MEDLINE/PubMed will stop identifying partial retractions. Here’s why.
Retraction Watch readers may be familiar with partial retractions. They’re rare, and not always appreciated: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) says that “they’re not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.”
Today, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), which runs MEDLINE/PubMed, announced that the vast database of scholarly literature abstracts is no longer going to identify partial retractions.
We spoke to NLM’s David Gillikin about the change: Continue reading MEDLINE/PubMed will stop identifying partial retractions. Here’s why.