Category: by journal

One team’s struggle to publish a replication attempt, part 3

Mante Nieuwland

Which journals will publish replications? In the first post in this series, Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, described a replication attempt of a study in Nature Neuroscience that he and his colleagues carried out. Yesterday, he shared the story of their first submission to the journal. In the final installment today, he explains why the paper was eventually published in another journal. Continue reading One team’s struggle to publish a replication attempt, part 3

An attempt to publish a replication attempt in a Nature journal, part 2

Mante Nieuwland

Do journals walk the walk when it comes to publishing replications? In the first installment in this series of guest posts, Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, described a replication attempt of a study in Nature Neuroscience that he and his colleagues carried out. Today, he shares the story of their first submission to the journal. Continue reading An attempt to publish a replication attempt in a Nature journal, part 2

Nature says it wants to publish replication attempts. So what happened when a group of authors submitted one to Nature Neuroscience?

Mante Nieuwland

Over the past few years, Nature has published editorials extolling the virtues of replication, concluding in one that “We welcome, and will be glad to help disseminate, results that explore the validity of key publications, including our own.” Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, and colleagues were encouraged by that message, and submitted one such replication attempt to Nature Neuroscience. In a three-part guest post, Nieuwland will describe what happened when they did, and discusses whether reality lives up to the rhetoric. Here’s part one: Continue reading Nature says it wants to publish replication attempts. So what happened when a group of authors submitted one to Nature Neuroscience?

A frustrated former editor asked a publishing group for help. He didn’t like what they said.

When the former editor of a public health journal didn’t get a straight answer about why the journal retracted his paper that was critical of corporate-sponsored research, he brought his concerns to an organization dedicated to promoting integrity in academic publishing. He wanted the group to help resolve the impasse he’d reached with the publisher, but was sorely disappointed.

David Egilman, the former editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, had been seeking answers about the paper for a year. In November, the journal’s editorial board resigned, in protest of the “apparent new direction that the journal appears to be moving towards.” They objected to the “unilateral withdraw[al]” of Egilman’s paper, with little explanation, the delay in publishing other papers that had been accepted under Egilman’s leadership, and the decision to appoint a new editor with industry ties.

Amidst all that upheaval at the journal, Egilman still wasn’t getting the answers he wanted about why his paper was withdrawn. So he brought his concerns to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Continue reading A frustrated former editor asked a publishing group for help. He didn’t like what they said.

When multiple doctors treat a patient, who gets to publish the case report?

Three researchers are fighting over who should get to publish a case report on a pair of unique patients.

Yoo-Mi Kim—who was not an author on the paper—claimed that he had diagnosed the patients described in the report, and should have been the one to write it up. The authors—Jun Woo Park and Soo Jung Lee—disagreed, claiming that they had treated the patients for years and had received oral consent from the patients to publish the report.

The Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, unable to resolve the disagreement, has published an expression of concern highlighting the dispute. Continue reading When multiple doctors treat a patient, who gets to publish the case report?

Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

An editor thought she did a great job running an anesthesiology journal. But her colleagues— including the new editor who took over for her—heartily disagree.

During her tenure at the journal, the outgoing editor penned an editorial taking credit for the journal’s rise to success. But, according to a new commentary published in the journal, the former editor’s article presented wrong statistics, and minimized the contributions of those who had come before her. So when the new editor took office, he retracted it—and published the lengthy commentary explaining why. Continue reading Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

Chemists duke it out over who was first to discover a 30-year-old technique

Decades ago, unbeknownst to each other, two chemists were independently working on a screening approach to identify new potential drugs. Both published papers about the technique around the same time. So now, when scientists write papers that cite the technique, who should get credit for discovering it?

Decades later, that question still hasn’t been answered — and the researchers continue to argue, this time over one’s decision not to cite the other’s work.  

More than 30 years ago, Árpád Furka—now retired from Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest—developed an approach he says has had “outstanding importance” in drug development. The technique, called split-mix synthesis, made it possible to synthesize and screen millions of peptides at once, instead of one by one. Furka patented the method in 1982, presented an abstract in 1988, and published a paper in 1991. Continue reading Chemists duke it out over who was first to discover a 30-year-old technique

Researcher loses battle with Cell over wording of retraction notice

For months, a researcher has wrestled with a journal over the wording of an upcoming retraction notice. It appears that she has lost.

Earlier this week, Cell retracted the paper, despite the protests of first author Shalon Babbitt Ledbetter. When Ledbetter learned the journal was planning to retract the biochemistry paper over image manipulations, but wouldn’t name the culprit in the notice, she shared her concerns on PubPeer. Although a 2015 letter sent to Cell from Saint Louis University identified last author Dorota Skowyra as responsible for multiple manipulations, the journal wasn’t planning to say Skowyra was responsible in the retraction notice. Which would leave all other authors — particularly Ledbetter — under a cloud of suspicion.

Now, Cell Press has finally retracted the paper, along with another paper in Molecular Cell that lists Skowyra as corresponding author. Both notices describe image manipulations that were investigated by Saint Louis University (SLU). Neither identifies who is responsible.

Continue reading Researcher loses battle with Cell over wording of retraction notice

Author under fire has eight papers retracted, including seven from one journal

A researcher whose work on the use of nanomaterials has been heavily scrutinized on PubPeer — with one critic alleging a paper contained “obviously fabricated” images — has lost eight papers. [Editor’s note: See update below.]

The eight articles — seven from Biosensors and Bioelectronics and one from Analytica Chimica Acta, both published by Elsevier — all cite issues related to duplications, and conclude with some version of the following:

Continue reading Author under fire has eight papers retracted, including seven from one journal

Flawed climate science paper “exposed potential weaknesses” in the peer review process

Before we present this new post, a question: Do you enjoy reading Retraction Watch? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support our work? Thanks in advance.

How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on climate change, pass peer review?

That is what three editorial board members tried to figure out after the journal, Global and Planetary Change, faced heavy criticism for publishing the controversial paper last year. The board members published their findings earlier this month in a commentary.

Martin Grosjean, the corresponding author on the editorial, told Retraction Watch that the editors and publisher, Elsevier, share the same interest: Continue reading Flawed climate science paper “exposed potential weaknesses” in the peer review process