The week at Retraction Watch featured a PhD student expelled for submitting a paper without her co-authors’ permission, and a look at the six types of peer reviewers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: What lurks in clinical trial databases; plagiarism by Russian ministers; why journals shy away from fraud allegations
Author: Ivan Oransky
Weekend reads: Lying academics; journals to blame for bad behavior; why bad science is funded
The week at Retraction Watch featured a first in transparency from Canada, and the second retraction for a fan of a conspiracy theory. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Lying academics; journals to blame for bad behavior; why bad science is funded
How to better flag retractions? Here’s what PubMed is trying
If you’ve searched recently for retracted articles in PubMed — the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database of scientific abstracts — you may have noticed something new.
In fact, you may have had trouble ignoring it, which is sort of the point. “It” is a large salmon banner that looks something like this: Continue reading How to better flag retractions? Here’s what PubMed is trying
Canada funding agency bans researcher for fraud, and in first, reveals her name
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has banned a bone researcher for life following a finding of misconduct. And in a first, the agency has named her, in their report out today.
The case of Sophie Jamal may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers, as we covered it in October of last year following reporting by The Toronto Star. JAMA retracted a 2011 study by Jamal and colleagues in December, as we reported, and she resigned her positions at Women’s College Hospital (WCH) and the University of Toronto.
Jamal, according to the an investigating committee at WCH: Continue reading Canada funding agency bans researcher for fraud, and in first, reveals her name
Weekend reads: More Impact Factor scrutiny; $10 million fine for overbilling; protected Canadian fraudsters
The week at Retraction Watch featured the loss of a Harvard researcher’s PhD for misconduct, and the harrowing tale of a whistleblower. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: More Impact Factor scrutiny; $10 million fine for overbilling; protected Canadian fraudsters
Vast majority of Americans want to criminalize data fraud, says new study
As Retraction Watch readers know, criminal sanctions for research fraud are extremely rare. There have been just a handful of cases — Dong-Pyou Han, Eric Poehlman, and Scott Reuben, to name several — that have led to prison sentences.
According to a new study, however, the rarity of such cases is out of sync with with the wishes of the U.S. population:
Continue reading Vast majority of Americans want to criminalize data fraud, says new study
Weekend reads: Unscientific peer review; impact factor revolt; men love to cite themselves
The week at Retraction Watch featured a puzzle, and the retraction of a controversial study on fracking. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Unscientific peer review; impact factor revolt; men love to cite themselves
Weekend reads: Publisher under fire; Canadian scientists demand change; a troubled psychiatry trial
The week at Retraction Watch featured an unwitting co-author and a painful example of doing the right thing. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Publisher under fire; Canadian scientists demand change; a troubled psychiatry trial
Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China
Weekend reads: Naughty journals; whistleblowers’ frustration; new misconduct definition?
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of fraud in more than $100 million in government research, and swift findings in a much-discussed case. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Naughty journals; whistleblowers’ frustration; new misconduct definition?